ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Electricity and Gas Markets (Europe)

William Bain: What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on European electricity and gas markets.

Edward Davey: The UK strongly supports the single energy market, which will bring benefits to the EU economy by increasing competitiveness and energy security. Last week, I met my Irish counterpart to sign a memorandum of understanding on exploring the scope for trading renewable energy. In November, I attended the first meeting of the North European energy dialogue to discuss the growth potential of energy infrastructure investment with ministerial colleagues from across northern Europe. I hope to host a follow-up meeting in London this year.

William Bain: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. I would be even more grateful if he reminded his Conservative colleagues that we can shape the single market only by remaining a member state of the European Union. Does he agree with the Commission that getting member states back on track to complete the single energy market is critical as it will reduce bills for consumers across Europe by €100 a year, increase Europe’s growth rate by 0.8% of GDP and create 5 million jobs across the energy industries?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The single energy market is an important development for Europe and the UK. The coalition Government have been united in support of developments in the single energy market in Europe. It is in Britain’s interests and we will pursue it.

Philip Hollobone: Although the UK has substantial reserves of gas in the North sea, we import a lot of gas. That has an effect on our energy security. What are the latest figures for the proportion of gas that we import from Russia and by sea from the middle east?

Edward Davey: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. We do not use directly much gas from Russia, but we are happy to explore that potential. It is in the interests of this country’s energy security that we have a diverse supply of gas. I do not have the exact figures for the middle east, but of the gas that is imported in this country, about 40% comes from there. I am not sure what proportion of the total gas that is consumed comes from the middle east.

Green Deal

Graeme Morrice: What steps he is taking to encourage energy companies to deliver green deal finance through small and medium-sized enterprises.

Gregory Barker: There will be huge opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises in delivering the green deal and they are vital to its success. Our SME forum for the green deal, which has been ably chaired by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), has delivered an excellent set of recommendations on which we are acting.

Graeme Morrice: What advice would the Minister give my constituent, Mr Ged Smith, who runs a local energy efficiency company? Like many people in a similar position, he is on the brink of going out of business, at the cost of hundreds of jobs, because there is no sign of any funding from the utility companies through the energy company obligation, as they say that they are too busy tying up the loose ends of the carbon emissions reduction target to engage in discussions about the ECO?

Gregory Barker: I am afraid that that is not absolutely correct. I am pleased to report to the House that more than 1,000 measures have been delivered under the ECO in the past few days, even though Warm Front came to an end on 19 January. It is early days and there is a transition, but we are working with SMEs to make that transition work and the long-term prospects are bright.

Stephen Mosley: I welcome the launch of the green deal this week. Consumers now need to know that it is available and must start signing up. What is the Minister doing to let people know that the scheme is available and to encourage them to join it?

Gregory Barker: Clearly the Government have a role. My hon. Friend may have seen the green deal adverts that have run in the press. They will continue to run this weekend and the weekend after. We will also be launching a digital campaign. This is a tightly focused, value-for-money campaign, not a huge advertising splurge. The real drive will come from the individual offers. What marks the green deal out as different from previous Government energy efficiency programmes is that there will be huge choice, huge competition and lots of market participants.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Minister share my disappointment about the fact that many of us thought that the green deal would be an opportunity for small and medium-sized businesses up
	and down the country not only to fit smoke alarms and CO monitors at the same time, but to prepare for smart metering? I now understand that CO alarms will not be fitted under the green deal, unlike I was led to believe, and that smart metering has been put on hold.

Gregory Barker: First, smart metering has not been put on hold; we have a very ambitious roll-out. The green deal has got off to a good start and had 42,000 visitors to its website on Monday alone. I understand that CO alarms are part of the green deal assessment, but I will willingly discuss that with the hon. Gentleman, who I know has a long history on the issue.

Simon Hughes: I welcome greatly the launch of the green deal and hope it will be successful. Will the Minister ensure that, among others, the chambers of commerce and all trade federations are informed about the green deal directly, and that all local authority libraries also contain the information?

Gregory Barker: We are making the information available widely online and we have a range of outreach activities, including round tables. Local authorities are a particularly important partner in the green deal, and I am delighted that a number of the largest metropolitan areas have been core partners in the “go early” project. I will ensure that the organisations mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman get the information.

Green Energy Technologies

Neil Carmichael: What recent assessment he has made of investment opportunities in green energy technologies.

John Hayes: It is estimated that replacing and upgrading our electricity infrastructure over the next decade will require approximately £110 billion of capital investment. That will provide investment opportunities for a mix of low-carbon technologies, with all the exciting prospects that brings.

Neil Carmichael: I thank the Minister of State for that answer, not least because so many firms in my constituency are clearly interested in green technologies. Does he agree that the Government have taken measures to demonstrate clarity and consistency of policy, and that that should give comfort to investors, particularly bankers, in supporting small and medium-sized enterprises?

John Hayes: I think it was John Ruskin who said that when we build we must think that we build for ever, and the Government are determined to build a framework of certainty that will allow investment in a range of generating technologies to guarantee our energy security. Our ambitions are no less than that.

David Hanson: If things are going so well, will the Minister tell the House why 17 companies are taking his Department to court for billions of pounds of compensation because of cuts to feed-in tariffs, why 80% of the solar industry has collapsed over the past year in respect of installations, and why companies in my constituency are screaming at me about the Government’s failure to develop solar industries?

John Hayes: The right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished Home Office Minister under the previous Government, so he will know that when the Government take on major challenges, such as the one I have described, it is not, of course, an easy road to tread. The Government’s determination to reform our electricity market and introduce the changes necessary to guarantee our energy security is, by any comparison—certainly in comparison with the Government of whom he was a part—profound, valued and welcomed by the vast majority in the industry.

Michael Crockart: One technology that could make a huge difference in this area is anaerobic digestion. I have had discussions with companies in the field, and despite interest from the green investment bank they report that they are still having difficulty in accessing finance. What more can the Minister do to help with that problem?

John Hayes: It is critical that both the cost and availability of capital underpin the investment I have described, and that is particularly true, as the hon. Gentleman says, for small and medium-sized enterprises. We are working on that with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—my former Department—but given that he has raised the matter in this way, I will look at it again and report back directly to him.

Tom Greatrex: We heard the Minister talk about the certainty and clarity of the new arrangements and contracts for difference, but those of us serving on the Energy Bill Committee have in recent weeks heard evidence from ScottishPower, the Royal Bank of Scotland, RenewableUK and others, about the importance of the three-year transitional period. This morning we have the opportunity to vote for a Labour amendment to the Energy Bill that would ensure that if there is any delay, that three-year period of transition will remain. Will the Minister confirm whether he will be voting for that amendment, and if not, why not?

John Hayes: I never confirm what I am going to do about amendments until I have heard the arguments, and as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, it would be premature for me to consider his amendment in the House at this time and not in Committee. On the specifics of the issue, we have allowed an overlap between the renewables obligation and the new arrangements, specifically and particularly because we want businesses to be able to adapt to the new system.

Fuel Poverty

Caroline Dinenage: What steps his Department is taking to tackle fuel poverty.

Gregory Barker: The green deal and energy company obligation will provide considerable support to make homes more energy efficient, reaching some 230,000 low-income and vulnerable households each year. Our warm home discount scheme supports 2 million households in total—this winter it has already helped more than 1 million of the poorest pensioners. We also make cold weather payments and winter fuel payments.

Caroline Dinenage: The Government have recently consulted on a new definition of fuel poverty to ensure that help is targeted at those who need it most. Will the Minister confirm what progress has been made?

Gregory Barker: I am happy to do so, as I know my hon. Friend takes an interest in fuel poverty. Professor John Hills published his final report in 2012. It highlighted serious flaws with the current methodology. We have therefore committed to moving away from that definition and consulted on a new approach that will more accurately measure the problem. We will publish our response to the consultation early in 2013. In addition to changes to the definition, we have announced that we will publish, for the first time since 2001, a refreshed strategy for tackling fuel poverty this year, and ensure that our resources are being used as effectively as possible.

Mr Speaker: Order. We are obliged.

Michael Weir: One group that suffers most from fuel poverty is those on prepayment meters. Hon. Members have heard evidence from witnesses in the Energy Bill Committee that the Government’s proposals will make reductions to the lowest tariff only within the type of tariff people are already on. How will that help those on prepayment meters?

Gregory Barker: Those people should also see reductions; they certainly will not be stranded on previous deadweight tariffs.

Caroline Flint: The Government have claimed that the new energy company obligation will be bigger and better than the fuel poverty and energy efficiency schemes that came before it. Why, therefore, could up to 60% of ECO funding end up going to people who can already afford to improve their homes, and not to those in fuel poverty?

Gregory Barker: The fact is that a minimum of £540 million a year under ECO will be directed towards the fuel poor. That is a minimum; we expect far more to end up in low-income areas as ECO rolls out, and as we upgrade our housing and finally come up with the solution in respect of retrofitting that Labour, in 13 years, failed to offer.

Caroline Flint: The Minister can dodge the question as much as he likes, but the facts speak for themselves. Out of this year’s ECO budget of £1.3 billion, just £540 million will go to people in fuel poverty. That is less than the budget for people who can afford to insulate their own homes, and less than half the support available last year. Is that not why, according to the Government’s impact assessment, ECO is forecast over the next 10 years to lift just 250,000 households out of fuel poverty—50,000 fewer than fell into fuel poverty this winter alone?

Gregory Barker: I remind the right hon. Lady that, while she was in government as a Minister, fuel poverty rose from 2 million to 5.5 million. This Government are committed to doing something about it. Rather than crying crocodile tears, perhaps she should recognise that that £500 million-plus is the absolute minimum we are spending on the fuel poor. We expect to spend a lot more.

Energy Bills

Stella Creasy: What steps he is taking to help households with their energy bills.

Pauline Latham: What steps he is taking to reduce consumers’ energy bills.

Dominic Raab: What steps he is taking to reduce consumers’ energy bills.

Edward Davey: We have a range of initiatives to help people with their energy bills, including tariff reforms, energy saving programmes and additional help for those on the lowest incomes. From our proposals to help get consumers on to the cheapest tariffs to the green deal, and from the warm home discount to our promotion of collective switching, this Government are working hard to help people to keep their energy bills down.

Stella Creasy: As payday loan adverts appear all over the receipts for prepayment meters and their rates remain artificially high, what advice do the Government and the Secretary of State have for those who have to take out payday loans to pay their energy bills? Does he think it is a good or a bad thing?

Edward Davey: The hon. Lady is a real campaigner on payday loans and I congratulate her on her work. She knows an awful lot about interest rates on unsecured credit, including payday loans, and how high they can be. I therefore hope she tells Labour Front Benchers about them. They have criticised the interest rate on the green deal, but that is one of the most competitive interest rates around for unsecured credit. The green deal is a good job, and will help everyone who is suffering from fuel poverty.

Pauline Latham: The big six manipulated the previous schemes that Labour put in place to help people with energy efficiency measures to get their bills down by sending out light bulbs. This Government have started a new scheme that will not be open to fraud, and that will include measures that will actually bring people’s bills down. Can the Secretary of State update the House on the progress of the new energy company obligation?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. While the carbon emissions reduction target had its successes, more than 300 million light bulbs were provided in the early years of the scheme and we estimate that approximately a third of them are still lying unused in cupboards. There was no doubt that we needed to reform the CERT. She is absolutely right to say that the ECO is a much better scheme. As the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) said, it is already under way and having a real effect in bringing help to people.

Dominic Raab: uSwitch proposed an industry-designed web service to facilitate groups switching between energy suppliers, helping consumers get a better deal on their
	bills. Will the Secretary of State consider supporting incentivising companies to sign up and provide portable billing data by offering a temporary tax break to help cover the costs?

Edward Davey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and I will certainly look into that idea, but can I just tell him how many things the Government are doing to support switching, not least our support for collective switching? One of the advantages of collective switching is that it can get even better deals for people than the normal switching we have seen in the past. It can also reach out to the most vulnerable and to the people on the lowest incomes. That is why the only criterion for our competition, Cheaper Energy Together, which this year will see 94 councils involved in collective switching schemes, was that the fuel poor should be involved.

Russell Brown: I do not recognise where the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), got his figures from when he answered the previous question, because under the previous Labour Government 1.75 million people were lifted out of fuel poverty. When next year’s figures come out, which will show what has happened since the general election, does the Secretary of State think that the number of people in fuel poverty will have increased or decreased?

Edward Davey: I am grateful for the chance to answer a question on this issue, because the report that my predecessor commissioned from Professor John Hills is a serious report, and I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to read it. It talks about how we measure fuel poverty and shows that some of the statistics we have used in the past have been deeply unhelpful in tackling fuel poverty, not least because they failed to identify the people who were in grinding fuel poverty year in, year out. The proposals put forward by Professor John Hills will ensure that the really poor, who never escape fuel poverty, are identified and that we can give them much greater help. That is the real debate we should be having, not this exchange of statistics that gets us nowhere.

Fuel Poverty

Linda Riordan: What assessment he has made of changes in the level of fuel poverty since 2010.

Debbie Abrahams: What assessment he has made of changes in the level of fuel poverty since 2010.

Alex Cunningham: What assessment he has made of changes in the level of fuel poverty since 2010.

Gregory Barker: The latest annual fuel poverty publication estimates that during the first year of the coalition Government, fuel poverty fell by 500,000 to 3.5 million households in England. It is projected that the number of households in fuel poverty remained the same in 2011, but may rise again in 2012.

Mr Speaker: I call Mrs Linda Riordan. [Interruption.] I do apologise. I thought the Minister of State had completed his answer, but there were further joys to behold and I did not realise that.

Linda Riordan: Since the Government came to power, the average energy bill has risen by more than £300 a year—a big issue for my constituents, with all the other cuts going on. Is it not a fact that the Government have halved their support for people in fuel poverty?

Gregory Barker: No, that is not the case. The hon. Lady knows that during the previous Parliament fuel poverty rose from 2 million to 5.5 million, and it continues to be a huge issue. The only way we will tackle it is not by chasing gas prices, but tackling the underlying cause—the fabric of our homes—and creating better, warmer and cheaper homes for people to live in.

Debbie Abrahams: In Oldham, more than 17,600 households —one in five—were in fuel poverty in 2010, but with energy bills up by as much as 20% that figure is likely to be much higher today. Oldham council is not content, however, to let the most vulnerable people in society suffer, and through a fair energy campaign, it is ensuring that people in my constituency can keep their homes warm without worrying about hefty energy bills. Will the Government take a lesson from Oldham council?

Gregory Barker: We are working collaboratively with local authorities up and down the country, which have a key role to play in delivering the green deal and ECO. It is by an area-based, street-by-street roll-out, rather than by chasing gas prices, that in the long term we will deal with fuel poverty once and for all.

Alex Cunningham: My local borough, Stockton-on-Tees, is a national leader in tackling fuel poverty—we have had a warm zone initiative, a go warm campaign and now a hard-to-heat homes campaign—but it takes real investment to make these things happen. Energy companies are using consumers’ money to promote and install energy efficiency measures, but why will the Government not do the right thing and restore Government investment in energy efficiency measures, instead of leaving it to expensive loans that will cost consumers more than they might save?

Gregory Barker: By and large, consumers and taxpayers tend to be the same people. We are determined to get far better value out of our energy poverty eradication programmes than the previous Government did, and we will demonstrate that by getting more measures taken for less and bringing in competition. The green deal will, for the first time, let the fuel poor make real choices, as opposed to the monopoly one-size-fits-all solution of the previous Government.

Green Deal

Jim Cunningham: How many households he expects to take up loans offered under the green deal.

Gregory Barker: The green deal is a completely new market-led initiative for installing energy efficiency measures. We expect demand to build over time, so forecasts are difficult, but the green deal impact assessment estimated that about 223,000 households would take advantage of the scheme in year one. On day one, 42,000 people visited the website for information.

Jim Cunningham: Will the Minister estimate what proportion of households taking up the green deal are likely to lose more than they save owing to high interest rates, hidden charges and penalty payments?

Gregory Barker: The golden rule in the green deal should mean that the vast majority of people, on a like-for-like basis, will be better off, even after financing is taken into account. It is about time that Labour stopped running down the green deal; stopped running down all the small and medium-sized enterprises and small businesses investing in this new opportunity; stopped running down all the people training up and getting skills for this new opportunity; and started talking up the British economy, rather than scoring cheap political points.

Luciana Berger: It is because my Labour colleagues want the green deal to work that we are trying to hold the Government to account over the practicalities of a scheme that we have been talking about for the past two years.
	The Government predicted that the green deal would create 100,000 jobs by 2016, but the Insulation Industry Forum estimates that since its soft launch in October more than 83,000 insulation projects have been cancelled or put on hold and that 4,200 people have lost their jobs in the sector. What has gone wrong?

Gregory Barker: We are at the dawn of a far more exciting and expansive long-term project. We are talking not only about lagging lofts, but about the whole-house retrofit of millions of homes, and our impact assessment shows that we will create tens of thousands of jobs by 2015. Perhaps the hon. Lady would stop scaremongering about interest rates and start getting behind all the consumers and small businesses that will benefit from the green deal.

Onshore Wind Farms

Glyn Davies: What steps he is taking to enable local communities to express opposition to onshore wind farms in their area.

Edward Davey: It is important that communities have a real opportunity to have a say over development in their area, which is why this Government’s planning reforms put local communities in the driving seat. Our recent call for evidence looked at how communities can be better engaged with, and receive greater benefit from, hosting onshore wind in their area, and there will be a report in the summer.

Glyn Davies: Powys council is a small, rural, hard-pressed local planning authority that is currently having to divert £2.8 million from public services to defend refusals
	of wind farms at public inquiry, and the local community is also raising £150,000 for the same purpose, while developers have access to unlimited funds demanded from consumers. Will my right hon. Friend tell us how this can possibly be fair?

Edward Davey: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. He will understand that planning issues and support for local communities and local authorities are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and in my hon. Friend’s constituency for people in the Welsh Assembly Government, no doubt, but he makes a fair point. One reason why we have made the call for evidence on how local communities can benefit is to ensure that developers come forward and engage with local communities far better and in a less adversarial way than we have seen in some cases.

Mark Lazarowicz: Community groups in my part of Edinburgh, with which I am working, have been trying to set up an onshore wind turbine in the area. They have raised funds for a serious proposal, but have been bogged down by all sorts of bureaucratic nightmares, which in this case relate to Scottish Water and the Scottish Government. There are issues across the UK with communities that want to set up wind farms and renewable energy schemes but are not being allowed to do so. When the Minister looks at how to deal with those who oppose wind farms, will he also look at how we can support those who want community-owned wind farms to be set up in parts of the UK where they are popular?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: there are a number of communities that want to host wind farms, in places where it is appropriate to site wind farms. The Government’s whole approach is to try to work with local communities, to empower them and, with our latest call for evidence, to reach out to communities that do not want wind farms and ensure that they have more of a voice, and to enable those that do want them to proceed. That seems the right and fair way forward.

Mark Spencer: I do not know whether the Secretary of State has had the opportunity to read The Sun newspaper this morning, but he may have missed the article about a 115-foot wind turbine in Bradworthy in Devon that was blown over by the wind. I wonder whether he can reassure my constituents in Sherwood, where one of these turbines will be built near a footpath or bridleway, that they will be safe. Can he look into this?

Edward Davey: I am afraid to tell my hon. Friend that I have not read The Sun today, although I have heard reports of the incident that he talks about. Clearly people who develop, run and maintain wind farms, as with any sort of industrial installation, have to ensure that they are fit for purpose and are not a danger to the public, otherwise the various authorities will come down hard on them and they will find themselves liable.

Karl Turner: Can the Minister reassure companies such as Siemens that under the contract for difference programme they will receive an appropriate strike price for the electricity they produce?

Edward Davey: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s question. As I understand it, Siemens tends to be a manufacturer of turbines as opposed to a developer or a generator. It is the generators that will receive contracts for difference. If Siemens is involved in a consortium and is generating, it will receive the CFDs that will have their prices set administratively following the current consultation by National Grid—a point that will also be relevant if it is involved in and wins an auction post 2017.

Nigel Adams: Earlier this month Selby district council’s planning committee voted unanimously to reject a seven-turbine wind farm at Bishopwood near Selby. In his response to the Department’s call for evidence on wind energy, will the Secretary of State be backing localism or will he impose these unwanted schemes on local communities even when they have rejected them?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman should realise that the call for evidence is focused on how local communities benefit. It is not about reforming the planning system, which is obviously the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, although the overall thrust of our policies in this coalition Government is to empower local communities, because we have a strong localist agenda.

Energy Efficiency

Nick Smith: What steps he is taking to help households improve their energy efficiency.

Gregory Barker: The green deal, which went live on Monday 28 January, will help to transform the homes of British consumers over the coming decade and beyond. This transformational policy, alongside the ECO and smart meter roll-out, will drive the development of a new energy efficiency market, providing unprecedented choice, benefits and access to low-cost finance for British consumers.

Nick Smith: Cold weather payments were triggered recently, as deep snow covered Blaenau Gwent, yet in recent months 181 insulation workers have been made redundant in Wales. Instead of the hyperbole, has not the Government’s introduction of the green deal and ECO sadly been woeful?

Gregory Barker: Once again, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see that the insulation industry has a huge opportunity to move beyond just installing measures such as loft insulation to whole-house retrofits. Of course the industry is in a period of transition, but unless we take this bold step and create a much larger market, we will never tackle fuel poverty and turn around the juggernaut of increasing fuel poverty figures that we inherited from the last Government.

Mr Speaker: I call Alec Shelbrooke. Not here.

Onshore Wind Farms

Natascha Engel: What recent assessment he has made of the financial return of the subsidy for onshore wind farm providers.

Edward Davey: Following a comprehensive review of renewable obligation subsidies, the Government announced on 25 July last year that the level of support for onshore wind developments would be reduced by 10% to 0.9 renewable obligation certificates per megawatt hour with effect from 1 April 2013. This represents a 9.6% rate of return on investment.

Natascha Engel: My constituents in Uppertown feel that, without their taxpayer subsidy to the onshore wind farms that they do not want, these wind farms would not be blighting their landscape. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to review the taxpayer subsidy and the value for money that the taxpayer is getting for onshore wind farms?

Edward Davey: First, let us be clear. Although, as the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker)said earlier, taxpayers are often consumers, the subsidies are paid for by consumers when and only when a wind farm produces electricity. There is good value for money for consumers, so I think onshore wind and offshore wind play a really important part in our energy mix. As the hon. Lady knows and as I said in my initial answer, we have reviewed the subsidies going to onshore wind and to all other renewables. In addition, because concerns were expressed around the House, we issued a call for evidence to check that the figures we used in our most recent analysis are up to date, particularly with respect to onshore wind. We will report back to the House on that call for evidence to see whether there have been changes to the cost structure that we did not find in our previous analysis.

Nuclear Power Stations

Paul Flynn: What recent assessment he has made of the potential construction of new nuclear power stations.

John Hayes: The Government are firmly committed to ensure the conditions are right for investment in new nuclear power, and welcome plans for around 16 GW of new nuclear power in the UK. It is up to energy companies to construct, operate and decommission nuclear power stations. It will be for Government and the independent regulators to ensure safety and security and to maximise the benefit. The future is bright and safe: the future is nuclear.

Paul Flynn: Professor Tom Burke, a former Government adviser, said on Tuesday that the Government are planning in secret to spend up to £30 billion in subsidy to new nuclear. New nuclear is in trouble in Finland and in France—years late and billions over budget. Are the Government going to break their promise to have no nuclear subsidies, and if they are going to break that
	promise, can the Minister guarantee that there will be full transparency and opportunities for Parliament to discuss, debate and vote against it?

John Hayes: I have no secrets from this House. Of course the Government are going to be transparent about the process. Of course the Government are going to ensure taxpayer value for money. The hon. Gentleman has a history of being against Trident, which is about our future. He has a history of being against the monarchy, which is also about our future. We knew that he wanted to ban the bomb and ban the monarchy; we now know that he wants to ban the future.

Charles Hendry: Yesterday’s decision of Cumbria county council not to take forward work to explore the suitability of the local area for a deep geological facility for nuclear waste seems to me to be a pretty serious blow, especially to Sellafield’s own aspirations to be a global centre of nuclear expertise. What steps does the Minister plan to take to take forward that critical work, which has to be an integral part of a nuclear renaissance? Will he look at alternative technologies such as GE Hitachi’s PRISM—power reactor innovative small module—technology?

Mr Speaker: A full day’s debate by the sound of it.

John Hayes: Of course disposal matters, but let me be clear: our plans for nuclear to be part of an energy mix are firm, resolute and will not be spoiled by anything that has been described. These are important matters, but the certainty and clarity that I described earlier are uninterrupted by these events.

Jamie Reed: Cumbria county council’s decision would have been described by John Ruskin as a “pathetic fallacy”. Will the Minister undertake to recognise the democratic mandate given by the people to the councils in west Cumbria to embark on a process of managing the country’s radioactive waste as a matter of urgency? Will he agree to meet me, and representatives of the trade unions, in order to establish a new process so that we can take action in the national interest?

John Hayes: I was looking at that Ruskin quotation last night, as it happens, and wondering whether I could weave it in.
	The hon. Gentleman has been notable for his support for nuclear power, because he understands its significance to the energy mix. He is right: there are very different views in Cumbria, and we should not characterise them in a casual fashion. Of course we will continue to work with local communities who understand the importance of long-term disposal in the same way as the hon. Gentleman and many of his friends in Cumbria.

Tom Greatrex: If the Minister were concerned about transparency, he would have voted for our amendments to the Energy Bill earlier this week, which would have increased transparency and given comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and many others.
	As for yesterday’s decision in Cumbria, the Minister has rightly noted that west Cumbrian authorities voted to support the study, although the county council did not. The Secretary of State said that he would embark
	on a new drive to make the case for waste disposal to other communities. This morning the president of his party, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron)—who is not in the Chamber—was quoted in the
	Financial Times 
	as saying that Oxfordshire was more suitable. Is that the policy of the party that is the Minister’s coalition partner, and, if so, has it been discussed with the Prime Minister?

John Hayes: We will have discussions with the communities who understand the significance of this and its potential value to them, and of course those discussions will be ongoing.
	Let me be clear about transparency. In the Bill Committee to which he referred, the hon. Gentleman has repeatedly made the case for a more transparent approach, and I am sympathetic to that argument. This Government must be characterised by openness in the way in which they conduct their affairs, in this matter and in all matters.

EDF (Strike Price Negotiations)

Martin Horwood: What recent progress has been made on strike price negotiations with EDF.

John Hayes: Shale gas has exciting potential, but we need to—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the Minister, but we are actually discussing strike price negotiations with EDF, which is a somewhat different matter.

John Hayes: I was racing ahead of myself for a moment, Mr. Speaker.
	Discussions are ongoing, with the aim of finding a fair, affordable, value-for-money deal. No commitment has been made on commercial terms or the strike price.

Martin Horwood: Another interpretation of those ongoing discussions is that they are offering a consumer subsidy to the French state nationalised energy company Électricité de France in a mature market, without much competition, and in advance of the relevant legislation. Should that not be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny?

John Hayes: As I have already said, the strike price that we agree and the process that leads up to that agreement will indeed be subject to such scrutiny, because we will be transparent about the arrangements that we make. Let me be perfectly candid. If this deal does not stack up, we will not proceed with it. It must be in the interests of taxpayers and it must be fair, although of course it must be commercially attractive as well. The negotiations are going ahead, and it would be inappropriate for me to say more about them, but I will say that this can be a win-win for our future.

Barry Gardiner: The Minister is right to say that the deal must be in our interests, but that cannot be known until after the fact of the agreement on the strike price. The key problem with the strike price is a perverse incentive to overestimate the construction costs on which it will be based. If it is subsequently
	found that those costs are lower than the estimate, the consumer will be paying more for the strike price that the Department has agreed. Why did the Minister and his colleagues on the Government Benches vote against our amendments to the Energy Bill, which would have made transparency essential to the entire process?

John Hayes: Because we have said that we will publish an investment contract concerning details of the strike price. The hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced Member of Parliament, knows that the process of negotiation itself is bound to deal with commercial matters that are sensitive, and is bound to deal with trade secrets which, as he acknowledged in the Bill Committee, cannot be published. He also knows that it might be subject to all kinds of other matters that it would be inappropriate to debate now. However, we are clear about this: we will be transparent, and we will be straightforward.

Mr Speaker: Order. These are very important matters, but there are other important matters that we need to reach.

Fracking

Peter Lilley: Whether his assessment of fracking in the US included any information on (a) people poisoned by water contamination and (b) buildings damaged by earth tremors as a result of fracking.

John Hayes: Now for shale gas, Mr Speaker. Shale gas has exciting potential, but we need to move forward with the right measures to ensure safe and secure operations, and reassure local communities. As for the US experience, so far as we know there has been no confirmed instance of any person being poisoned by water contamination or of buildings being damaged by earth tremors as a result of fracking.

Peter Lilley: I am grateful to the Minister for that clear answer. I know that he will not want to be critical of his predecessors in the Department, but why has it taken 18 months to discover such a simple fact, which, if promulgated earlier, would have set at rest the minds of people in the areas where frack drilling is likely to take place?

John Hayes: As my right hon. Friend knows, the Secretary of State has made it clear that he has put in place conditions, regulations, and secure and safe circumstances that will allow the continued exploration for shale gas. Shale gas is a potential virtue, but it has to be pursued in a way that is safe and secure, and guarantees public support.

Kerry McCarthy: Will the Minister take heed of the words of his predecessor, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), who warned against “betting the farm” on shale gas? Will the Minister assure me that the Government’s perspective on this issue is not influenced by the over-inflated claims made by firms that are major donors to, and have close links with, the Tory party? Such firms include the one that put in the recent planning application for exploratory drilling in Somerset and has given £500,000 to the Tories.

John Hayes: There will be a proper planning process subject to all the normal scrutiny and discipline. Of course we must move ahead with caution, but to ignore this opportunity and cast aside this potential would be folly.

Christopher Pincher: The British Geological Survey suggests that there could be 10 trillion cubic feet of gas under the Bowland field, whereas Cuadrilla suggests that there may be as much as 200 trillion. Would not the best way to determine who is right, so that we find out just what impact this vital resource could have and to ensure that we can get players into the marketplace, be for the Department to release the information it has and forge ahead on the next licensing round? That would allow us to get players into the marketplace and just do it.

John Hayes: Consistency is the watchword that characterises all the work that my hon. Friend does in this place, for in the Select Committee he made just that point and urged the Government to move ahead with another licensing round as soon as possible. We need to test and we need to establish the scale of this potential. Without exploration we cannot do that—he is absolutely right.

Energy Bills

Chi Onwurah: What steps he is taking to help households with their energy bills.

Edward Davey: As I said to hon. Members who asked a similar question, we have a range of measures to help people with their energy bills, be they the warm home discount or collective switching, and we think they are having a big impact.

Chi Onwurah: My constituents are facing cuts to jobs, cuts to tax credits and cuts to wages at the same time as food bills, VAT and energy bills are soaring. Will the Secretary of State explain why the Chancellor says that the Government will do everything they can to keep down energy bills but research by the Association for the Conservation of Energy shows that help for the people most in need has actually fallen?

Edward Davey: The hon. Lady missed out of her list the fact that we have taken 2 million of the lowest paid out of income tax altogether, delivering a tax cut to more than 25 million people; the fact that we have helped pensioners by a record amount; and the fact that last year people on benefits had a 5.2% increase. She ought to add those to her list.
	On help with energy bills, I have always said to the House that there is no way that I, or any Minister or any Government, can have an impact on the effect of world energy prices. People around the world are suffering from the high and increasing world gas and oil prices, and we have to do everything we can, in the short, medium and long terms, to help consumers, to help our people and to help our economies. We are doing that.

Topical Questions

Fiona Bruce: If he will make a statement on his Departmental responsibilities.

Edward Davey: The core purpose of the Department of Energy and Climate Change is to power the country and protect the planet, avoiding catastrophic climate change while providing secure and affordable energy supplies to the UK. Since the last DECC questions, the Energy Bill received its Second Reading, and it is now in Committee. We have launched the green deal to help all households save energy and to lower bills and we continue to work towards a legally binding global international treaty, engaging with our partners to formulate a road map through to 2015.

Fiona Bruce: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Congleton sustainability group, part of Congleton partnership, has developed plans for a local micro-hydro scheme to generate electricity from the old mill weir. It has received an offer of £250,000 from the rural carbon challenge fund, which is a substantial proportion of the funding needed, but further help is needed to translate this innovative scheme into a reality. Will the Minister meet me and a delegation from my constituency to discuss it?

Edward Davey: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question; that sounds a very interesting scheme. We are supporting micro-hydro schemes through feed-in tariffs but if she has particular issues that she wants to discuss with me or my colleagues in DECC, I am sure we will find time to meet her and her delegation.

Caroline Flint: Every day it is becoming more evident where the Liberal Democrats do not agree with their Conservative colleagues. However, in response to Labour’s proposal to extend community energy schemes by increasing the feed-in tariff threshold to 10 MW, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), told the Energy Bill Committee that
	“it is a matter of public record that I myself supported the expansion of the FITs scheme at the Conservative party conference last year…However, this is a coalition Government”.––[Official Report, Energy Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2013; c. 248-49.]
	Will the Secretary of State confirm today that it is the Liberal Democrats who are responsible for the Government’s failure to support extending the feed-in tariff threshold to 10 MW in the Energy Bill and therefore to support and encourage community energy schemes?

Edward Davey: I congratulate the right hon. Lady on a good try, but I am afraid it is going to fail. I work closely with both my Ministers of State and we are a united team on that and many other measures. I am sure the right hon. Lady will be terribly disappointed, but that is why we will introduce later this year the most ambitious community energy strategy this country has ever seen, and we will consult on it before we finalise it. She wants to point out one measure, but that will
	be considered along with many others. We have a rather more ambitious approach to community energy than the previous Government ever had.

Amber Rudd: The Energy Minister has appeared before the Energy Bill Committee, waxing lyrical about the important reforms the Government are introducing to ensure that we get the energy investment we need in the future. What steps is he taking to ensure that those measures will see appropriate diversity of generating technologies?

John Hayes: Diversity matters because it provides resilience and sustainability. It is absolutely right that, through the mechanisms we put in place and the framework of certainty I described earlier, we guarantee an energy mix that is fit for purpose and fit for the future.

Paul Flynn: In 1976, the Flowers commission said that it would be irresponsible to proceed with generating electricity from nuclear power without a policy on the disposal of waste. The policy then was to dig a hole and bury the waste in it. The policy now is to do the same thing, but we no longer have a hole since Cumbria county council turned down the planning permission yesterday. Will this preposterous buffoon of a Minister of State try to answer one question and say whether it is still irresponsible to proceed without a solution to deal with the waste?

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman should withdraw the expression “preposterous buffoon”—[Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman has a very wide vocabulary and should use an alternative expression.

Paul Flynn: I will pull those words and refer instead to this Minister who has failed to answer any question today and has demonstrated his incompetence.

Edward Davey: I am extremely disappointed in the approach that the hon. Gentleman has taken. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I work very closely on this issue and many other matters and he has made an important contribution to the debate. The hon. Gentleman clearly has not read the written ministerial statement issued before oral questions, which makes it very clear that our policy continues and has not changed. As his hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) said earlier, it is worth noting that Copeland borough council and Allerdale borough council voted with substantial majorities to say yes to a nuclear waste facility in their area.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. We have a lot to get through and we need short sharp questions and answers. I look to Roger Williams for a rapier thrust.

Roger Williams: Anaerobic digestion is sometimes seen as a Cinderella technology in our fight against climate change, although I am sure that that is not the case in the Department. A report by the Royal Agricultural
	Society of England sets out some of the benefits of on-farm AD, such as a reduction in greenhouse gases and pollution, but also a number of barriers to it. Will a Minister meet interested parties to discuss how those barriers can be overcome?

Gregory Barker: I am certainly happy to meet interested parties because AD is a priority for the Government. Since we published our AD strategy in 2011, I am glad to say that the deployment of AD plants has increased by a third. We remain ambitious, and I will happily meet my hon. Friend.

Joan Walley: In Stoke-on-Trent, we have a disproportionate number of people in fuel poverty and a high reliance on intensive energy use, on which a great number of jobs depend. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the city deal bid that is being made by Stoke-on-Trent and the local enterprise partnership for investment based on energy will be the subject of an urgent ministerial meeting to ensure that the proposals are not stalled?

Edward Davey: I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. Officials are working closely on the bid, although obviously I cannot prejudge the decision.

Karl McCartney: As a fellow Member representing an area in the green and pleasant county that is Lincolnshire, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), will be aware that Lincolnshire county council is deeply troubled by the local impact of onshore wind deployment. Does my hon. Friend share that concern?

John Hayes: I have with me Lincolnshire county council’s statement on exactly that matter. My councillors in Lincolnshire, as wise as they are worthy, and as diligent as they are dedicated, are determined to defend the landscape, and so am I.

Derek Twigg: You might recall, Mr Speaker, that in July last year, I raised on the Floor of the House my concern about the Department’s delay in deciding whether to retain the electric lines at the Heath business and technical park in Runcorn. This is important because the delay in the decision is holding up the creation of many hundreds of new jobs and of new housing. We are now told the decision might not be taken until March, because the inspector is busy. Does the Minister think that that is acceptable?

Mr Speaker: We have got it; we are obliged.

John Hayes: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman’s very specific point is well made. I shall be delighted to meet him to discuss those details and see what we can do to help.

Jeremy Lefroy: With the development of new sources of many types of generation in many locations on and offshore, what
	measures is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State taking to speed up the strengthening of the grid, which is essential for the efficient transmission of electricity?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend will know that Ofgem recently announced the settlement for national grid investment going forward, and the offshore transmission network regime has been strengthened. All these things are very important for the reasons that he outlined.

Thomas Docherty: Further to the earlier exchange about nuclear waste, the Secretary of State will be aware that the Ministry of Defence was talking to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority about taking the MOD’s waste, especially that from the submarines stored in my constituency. Will he confirm what fresh discussions he will ask the NDA to hold with the MOD to resolve the situation?

Edward Davey: Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members that yesterday’s vote by Cumbria county council in no way changes the extremely safe and secure way in which nuclear waste is stored, whether it comes from the Ministry of Defence through nuclear submarines, through power generation, or from our very large nuclear legacy. We are determined to ensure that that nuclear waste is stored safely for decades to come, if necessary in interim storage facilities, but we will be pressing on with our policies for a long-term geological storage facility.

Jackie Doyle-Price: Tilbury power station in my constituency has been generating power for more than 60 years. It successfully transferred from coal-fired generation to biomass to the extent that it generates more than half the UK’s supply of renewable energy. However, owing to the large combustion plant directive, it will still have to close. Is not that stark raving bonkers?

John Hayes: I am aware of that situation, and I know how well my hon. Friend has articulated and represented the interests of her constituents in this regard. This is, in the end, a commercial decision. RWE took the decision to use Tilbury as a test bed in October 2011 and converted the station to run on 100% biomass. Particular circumstances have affected that decision, but I will be more than happy, as I already have begun to, to discuss the matter further with my hon. Friend.

Barry Gardiner: In his response to my question earlier, the Minister of State was gracious enough to say that he wanted complete openness about the strike price. Will he therefore tell the House whether there will be a provision in the strike price negotiations for a claw-back, should the estimated construction costs exceed the real ones?

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is being mischievous. I have been very clear that those matters will be published for the scrutiny of the House, but he would hardly expect me to go into the detail of the negotiation while the negotiation was ongoing.

Duncan Hames: The prospect of managing a contract for difference is no trivial matter for the small organisations often involved in community
	energy initiatives. Will my right hon. Friend consider pleas from those on the Liberal Benches to continue the now familiar feed-in tariff for small-scale prospective community energy generators?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend knows that we have been looking at the issue and we will continue to keep it under consideration, but it has to be seen in the wider context of the community energy strategy that we are developing.

Barry Sheerman: I have seen many Ministers in the House and I think the Minister of State, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), is one of the better ones I have heard.
	May I push the ministerial team on the question of smart metering? As I understand it from the reply to an earlier question, smart metering is now going to be optional. It will not be installed in every house in the country, which would have been transformational. It has been downgraded to optional and will not be applicable across the board.

Edward Davey: Our proposal for the smart meter roll-out is very similar to that of the previous Government. We have a very ambitious roll-out. There is no desire for people not to take smart meters, but we have said, as the previous Government said, that if someone really does not want a smart meter, we will not force them to have one.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Andrew Lansley: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 4 February—Second Reading of the European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 5 February—Second Reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill.
	Wednesday 6 February—Opposition day [16th allotted day] (first part). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Democratic Unionist party on suicide prevention in the UK, followed by consideration of opposed private business nominated by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
	Thursday 7 February—Debate on a motion relating to subsidies for new nuclear power, followed by general debate on the closure of A and E departments. The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	The provisional business for the following week will include:
	Monday 11 February—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords], followed by general debate on the local government finance settlement for rural local authorities. The subject for this debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Tuesday 12 February—Opposition day [17th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Wednesday 13 February—Motions relating to the police grant and local government finance reports, followed by motions relating to the draft Social Security Benefits Up-Rating Order 2013 and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2013.
	Thursday 14 February—Debate on a motion on protecting future generations from violence against women and girls, followed by general debate on preventing sexual violence in conflict. The subjects for these debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 7 February will be:
	Thursday 7 February—Debate on the Environmental Audit Committee report on Protecting the Arctic, followed by debate on the Defence Committee report on Future of Maritime Surveillance.

Angela Eagle: I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting an urgent question on Tuesday to the Defence Secretary. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) said, we support the decision to send troops to Mali and neighbouring countries to help to train the Malian army, but the deployment of troops to conflict areas raises important issues on which Members wanted to question the Defence Secretary. It should not have taken an urgent question to force the Defence Secretary to the House. It is not the first time that an urgent question has been necessary to get the Defence Secretary to the Dispatch Box to answer questions on
	important matters concerning our armed services. Will the Leader of the House therefore undertake that in future, while our armed forces are deployed, the Defence Secretary will keep the House regularly updated without being forced to do so? Will the Leader of the House now agree to a general debate on the developing situation in north Africa?
	Last Friday’s GDP figures were terrible. After two and a half years in government, the Chancellor has presided over a double-dip recession and a flatlining economy. Once again on the part-time Chancellor’s watch, the economy is contracting. We warned that the Government’s economic strategy—if one can call it that—was damaging the economy: they cut too far and too fast. The Deputy Prime Minister has popped up to attack his own Government’s record of cutting infrastructure expenditure. It is a bit late to be saying so, since his party voted for each and every cut. While the economy has nose-dived, the part-time Chancellor has been filling up his time with pizzas in Davos, and not one but two dinners with Rupert Murdoch. With all these dinners, I fear that the only thing now growing is the Chancellor’s waistline.
	With bankers lining up to pay themselves massive bonuses over the forthcoming weeks, may we have an urgent statement from the Business Secretary on what the Government are going to do to stop this abuse?
	We welcome the cross-party decision on Tuesday on the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. The Conservative party’s attempt to gerrymander parliamentary boundaries was rejected by Members across the House from all political parties—an alternative coalition, one might call it. I welcome the fact that the Leader of the House has returned to his rightful role after subbing for the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith) in that debate, for reasons that were somewhat opaque. None the less, we enjoyed his performance on a sticky wicket.
	The Leader of the House will have heard in Tuesday’s debate the clamour among those on the Conservative Back Benches to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister, who was strangely absent from the proceedings. It is not very often that the Leader of the House’s Back Benchers want to hear from the Liberal Democrat leader. Given the demand, will he arrange for the Deputy Prime Minister to make a statement? I think we would all enjoy that.
	Relate tells us that January is the month in which couples are most likely to break up, so may I congratulate the coalition on managing to get through it? [Interruption.] Just—there is one day left.
	Last weekend I was troubled to read not about coalition tensions but about tensions within the Conservative party. There was even the suggestion of a plot to depose the Prime Minister. I do not know where the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) is today; perhaps the Chief Whip could tell us. The way things are going, we do not want to lose the Prime Minister and his chums, so may we have a debate on Government leadership to give the hon. Member for Windsor the opportunity to share with the House the qualities he thinks he has to lead the country?
	I have been looking at the voting records in Hansard. What we have learned this week is that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Maidstone
	and The Weald (Mrs Grant), managed to vote both for and against the Succession to the Crown Bill. She then failed to participate in the boundaries vote on any side, so engrossed was she in meeting Shami Chakrabarti from Liberty. She was not the only Conservative Minister to miss Tuesday’s crucial vote. In a brilliant whipping operation, the Foreign Secretary decided that he would rather have dinner in Washington than vote in the House. You would have thought, Mr Speaker, that the Cabinet was a dining society given the number of dinners that Ministers are having. Can’t vote, forgets to vote, can’t be bothered to turn up—what a shambles!

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House. I think she asked one question relating specifically to future business.
	Of course, it is absolutely our intention and that of my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary that the House should be regularly and appropriately informed about our engagement in Mali and in north-west Africa. On the issue of a statement or an urgent question, the circumstances were that EU agreement had not yet been reached on the EU training mission, and in my colleague’s mind was the intention to update the House in the light of the EU training mission as well as the bilateral agreements that were entered into. I make no bones about that—it was absolutely fine for the urgent question to be responded to and we will keep the House informed. I cannot promise an oral statement in every case, for reasons of the progress of business, but I am sure we will keep the House fully informed through a combination of written ministerial statements, oral statements and answers to questions.
	The hon. Lady asked a number of questions. It is interesting—the Leader of the Opposition made almost exactly the same point yesterday—that the Opposition try to argue that the economy requires the Government to spend more money, but complain, at one and the same time, that the Government are borrowing too much. They cannot have it both ways. They have to decide. Not only does their position represent utter confusion on the part of the Labour party, but, to be frank, it carries no credibility outside Parliament—that is the essential point. As the Prime Minister rightly said, the public will not trust the people who crashed the car last and put them back in the driving seat. It is not going to happen.
	I listened to yesterday’s debate on Europe, but did not hear the confusion regarding the Labour party’s position remotely clarified. As far as I can see, the Opposition’s position now is that they are not in favour of an in/out referendum today, but they might be at some point in the future; yet, at the same time, they manage to be opposed to the idea of making a future commitment to the public that a new settlement with Europe should be the subject of a referendum. If they, like us, do not want a referendum now, why can they not just agree with us that there should be a referendum in the future on the basis that the public have the right to decide on the character of the settlement that we seek to negotiate with Europe?
	On the question of powers in Europe, the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that, through the review of competences, we are looking at that negotiation with specific objectives for the return of powers. The hon. Lady and the Leader of the Opposition talk about
	returning powers, but the shadow Foreign Secretary has said that the Opposition are talking not about repatriation but about reform and a flow of powers to and back from Europe. I thought that the Opposition had just agreed to the referendum lock on powers to Europe, yet they seem to be reopening that question. There is utter confusion on their part.
	Finally, the hon. Lady referred to collective ministerial responsibility. It was my happy duty to lead from the Dispatch Box on the debate on the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. She was very kind about that. In fact, she was so kind that she did not observe that, although I was defending a sticky wicket—though I did make the odd stroke here and there—the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who is not in his place, took the bails off my stumps later on. He was rather good—I give him credit for that.
	The point is—the hon. Lady has to give the Government credit for this—that the mid-term review shows that we are very clear about where we are going and we are doing it together as a coalition. We have entered into not only a coalition but a mid-term review. We understand that we have a collective responsibility. I wish that the shadow Leader of the House and her colleagues would stand at the Dispatch Box and take either collective or individual responsibility for the mess they left this country in—for the debt and the six-and-a-half per cent. collapse in the economy. The reduction in GDP was not 0.1% but 6.3%. It was a bust like we had never seen before, after her then leader had promised that there would be no more boom and bust.

Peter Bone: On collective responsibility, paragraph 2.1 of the ministerial code says that the way the Liberal Democrats behaved on the boundary review would have required them to cross the Floor and leave Government unless the Prime Minister had signed an explicit waiver from collective responsibility. How was the House informed of the waiver? Was it by a press release to the BBC or an e-mail to Lobby correspondents, or has a yellow flag been run up over Downing street?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will recall, because he was in his place, that the House was informed that one of the reasons why I addressed the House from the Dispatch Box on Tuesday was that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith) spoke on behalf of the Government on the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. I spoke as Leader of the House in order to facilitate debate and to speak on behalf of my party in circumstances in which the Prime Minister had explicitly set aside collective ministerial responsibility. The House was informed by me then.

Natascha Engel: As the Leader of the House knows, more and more Members are coming to the Backbench Business Committee with ideas for debates that have a wider public interest. They are asking us to schedule debates quite far in advance so that they can then engage better with people outside in order to give them a better idea of what we are doing in Parliament. As he knows, we are given a maximum of two weeks’ notice of any days that are to be allocated to the Backbench Business Committee. Given that almost
	every Thursday is a Back-Bench day, will he consider the possibility of our working on the assumption that Thursdays will be Back-Bench days to allow Members more time to organise greater interest in the debates that are happening in Parliament?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady knows that I am happy to work with her and her colleagues to provide as much advance notice of the allocation of days as possible and, where possible, to enable her and her Committee to announce days in advance. We have been able to do that to some extent in the past. The issue was covered to some degree in the report from the Procedure Committee on the work of the Backbench Business Committee, to which I responded. We have a good record of providing Back-Bench time in the Chamber every week, with the exception of one week so far in this Session. She is, however, asking for a level of certainty in relation to future business that is not even available to me and my ministerial colleagues. She is aware of the issues that we face when timetabling business, but we do our absolute best to provide a degree of certainty to her and her colleagues, and we will continue to talk about how we can do that.

Mark Pritchard: Although I accept that our armed forces should be more flexible and mobile, the Government would be suffering from institutional amnesia if they thought that conflicts and wars could be fought and won by equipment alone. May we have an urgent debate on the future of the defence budget beyond 2015, so that we can hear that the Government are going to protect not only equipment but personnel?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend and I share a common understanding that the decisions that we have had to make on the defence budget were not ones that we sought but ones that were effectively forced upon us by the financial circumstances that we were left in. None the less, they have been responsible decisions. For example, we have looked at the simple fact of dealing with the £38 billion black hole in the defence budget. Today, in a written ministerial statement, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set out a future equipment plan for the Ministry of Defence, including a degree of contingency, that is extremely encouraging, compared with the past. He and the rest of the Government are committed to delivering the Future Force 2020 plan that we set out, notwithstanding the fact that it has involved some difficult decisions. I know that there will be opportunities for the House to debate that matter, but we in the coalition Government have committed ourselves to achieving those aims.

Dave Watts: I recently took a delegation to the previous Housing Minister to discuss the bedroom tax. At that meeting, it was clear that the Minister did not understand his own policy. Yesterday, the Prime Minister again showed that no one understands the implications of the tax that the Government are introducing. May we have an urgent debate on the issue, so that Ministers can turn up and listen to the implications of the tax for ordinary people in our constituencies?

Andrew Lansley: I do not recall whether the hon. Gentleman was able to be at the recent oral questions on these matters, but, having listened to those oral questions, my recollection was that Ministers completely understood the issue. It is very simple: the rate of increase of housing benefit had become unsustainable and, at the same time, there has been a dramatic increase in the demand for social housing, as all Members of Parliament know. There is a real need to ensure that social housing is used as effectively as possible to meet housing need, and the combination of those circumstances means that there is every reason to have an incentive and, if necessary, a requirement for people not to under-occupy the housing that they live in.

John Hemming: As part of the Procedure Committee’s inquiry into the failure of the Department for Education to answer written questions, I have been hacking into the computer database that holds the records for the House as a whole. I have discovered that some Departments are very good at answering questions and that some are not. Looking at questions that were tabled in 2011 and had not been answered by yesterday, I find that the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health had just one each, but the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Justice had 21 and 42 respectively. May we have a debate on why certain Departments are good at answering questions and others are not?

Andrew Lansley: I am interested in what my hon. Friend says. We have discussed this matter across the Dispatch Box before. Modesty forbids me to reiterate the record of the Department of Health in answering questions. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”] Suffice it to say that it can be done. We did it in the Department that had the largest number of questions, so it is not simply a matter of high volume leading to difficulty in performance.
	I welcome what the Procedure Committee is doing. The answer to my hon. Friend’s question is that when the Procedure Committee reports, there will be the usual opportunities for the Government to respond and, if it is sought, for the matter to be debated in the House.

Barry Sheerman: Has the Leader of the House seen the article on the front page of The Times today about a major scandal involving a charity and many millions of pounds? Does that not signify that the third sector—the charitable sector—is in deep trouble in our country? Forget the big society—the third sector and the charitable world are struggling to survive and to help people. Will we have a debate soon on the future of the third sector and charities?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I have read that article. On the hon. Gentleman’s request for a debate, I am aware from listening to questions and debates that Members across the House are supportive of charities and the voluntary sector, and want them to succeed. There are many ways in which the Government are trying to help them to succeed. However, having read the article in The Times this morning, I would urge him not to try to excuse those kinds of allegations by raising the financial problems. Those are separate issues. We should not try to draw together the situation in the voluntary sector and the issue of tax avoidance.

John Glen: My constituent Colin Froude wrote to me this week about the £107,000 bill that his elderly parents are having to pay for their care home this year. Many constituents have come to me on this issue. There is great frustration across the House at the Government’s failure to bring forward proposals to deal with the escalating costs of social care. Will the Leader of the House bring the relevant Minister to the House to make a statement on this critical issue, which affects many people up and down the country?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend raises a matter that is recognised in constituencies across the country as a compelling one that we must do something about. The Government have also been clear about that. He might reasonably have said that the previous Government failed to deal with the issue in 13 years. We have reached the point at which 45,000 older people a year are having to sell their homes to pay for care. The former Prime Minister Tony Blair said that that was a disgrace and that it would stop, but his Government did not act. They had a royal commission, but they did not act on it.
	After the election, the coalition Government appointed Andrew Dilnot and his colleagues to undertake a commission. They reported in the summer of last year. We have reiterated that we are determined to implement their principles. As the mid-term review made clear, the House can look forward to further announcements in the coming weeks about how we will do exactly that.

Mr Speaker: Today is a first for me. It is the first time in my 16 years in the House that I have observed the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) occupying the middle ground of the Chamber. I call Mr Jeremy Corbyn.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am obliged to you, Mr Speaker. I have always felt that travel broadens the mind.
	The Leader of the House will have heard the request from the shadow Leader of the House for a debate on the situation in north Africa. May I ask the Government, once again, to table a votable motion on the increasing deployment and involvement of British armed forces in what could become an unpleasant, long, drawn-out, guerrilla-like conflict into which this country, inevitably, will be sucked deeper and deeper? The precedent for holding a vote was set before the Iraq invasion in 2003 and it is now the norm that the significant deployment of British troops in a war requires the consent of Parliament. I hope that the Leader of the House will recognise that and that the Government will table an appropriate motion for debate, so that many of us can express our concerns about the depth of our involvement.

Andrew Lansley: In the first instance, I simply reiterate to the hon. Gentleman and the House that I believe Ministers have had several substantive opportunities to explain the nature and circumstances of our engagement, and to be questioned on that. I am not sure that I take the analogy with Iraq, or indeed Afghanistan; as my hon. Friends and Ministers have said at the Dispatch Box, an analogy with the situation in Somalia is probably closer.
	As the Government have made clear, we will observe the existing convention that before UK troops are committed to conflict, the House of Commons should
	have an opportunity to debate and vote on the matter, except when there is an emergency and such action would not be appropriate. One should also recognise, as my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary said in the House this week, that the role of British troops is clearly not a combat role and it is not our intention to deploy combat troops. We are clear about the risks of mission creep—that was the nature of the question being asked—and have defined carefully the support that we are willing and able to provide to the French and Malian authorities. I would not carry the analogy to the point where the convention is engaged in the sense of a requirement for a debate and vote in this House.

Philip Hollobone: When anyone moves to Britain with their car they are required to register the vehicle with the Driver and Vehicle and Licensing Agency, and to have UK plates on that vehicle within six months. That is to ensure that the vehicle is taxed, insured and roadworthy, and so that the driver can be prosecuted for any speeding or parking offences. By its own admission, the Department for Transport has said that those rules are not working, and with 2 million EU residents permanently residing in this country, there are potentially tens of thousands of vehicles on our roads illegally. Will the Leader of the House use his charm, influence and position to pioneer a joint statement by the Department for Transport, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, and say what Her Majesty’s Government will do to solve the problem?

Mr Speaker: Order. So far, the erudition of questions has been equalled only by their length. I am sure we will have a characteristically snappy answer from the Leader of the House.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend made an important point very well. I will indeed get in touch with my colleagues and use what influence I have to encourage them, if not to make a collective statement, certainly to respond to him on behalf of the Government and to inform the House.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I know the Leader of the House is a keen sportsperson and takes a keen interest in sport. Is he as concerned as I am about reports this week of a reduction in participation in school sports? That is worrying given the Olympic legacy. May we have a debate, discussion or ministerial statement about the decline in school sport?

Andrew Lansley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am always hopeful that we might have more opportunities to discuss sport in the House, and in part that is a matter for Members and the Backbench Business Committee. In that context, however, from my point of view I think we are doing a great deal. For example, I and my colleagues were responsible for promoting school sports clubs though the Change4Life campaign, and extending those clubs in primary schools and connecting them with financial support for school partnership organisers in order to connect with secondary schools. That was not only about support for elite sport, but about ensuring the participation of all young people in sports of one kind or another, particularly at primary school age.

David Burrowes: May we have a debate on the programme motion on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, given that there will not be a debate on that subject on Tuesday? That would allow the Government, and indeed the Opposition, to explain why they appear to be running scared of the Committee of the whole House deliberating on the issue, and why they are breaking with established convention from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Acts of 1990 and 2008 in not enabling Members of Parliament fully to express their consciences at Committee stage.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to explain. We have thought very carefully about the issues raised by him and colleagues on both sides of the House. I will not go into the 1990 analogy at length, but at that time there was no precedent or practice for taking evidence in a Public Bill Committee.

David Burrowes: What about hybrid Bills?

Andrew Lansley: The Bill is not a hybrid Bill.
	We propose that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill be debated in Committee, which affords the opportunity for the taking of oral evidence. From my point of view, that was a compelling reason for considering the Bill in Committee. Because of its technical character, the unitary nature of the argument and the need for oral evidence, particularly on the permissive religious marriage provisions, that is absolutely the right thing. It is also right to make it clear that we are prepared for two days of debate on the Floor of the House for consideration on Report.

Tom Greatrex: Since 1999, the cost of football tickets has increased by 716%. Liverpool fans might have been more entertained had they gone to see Fulham beat West Ham last night, but those who went to the Emirates to see their team will have paid £62. Fulham fans like me paid £53 to see a game at Stamford Bridge just before Christmas. May we have a debate on the impact of price increases for football supporters, and particularly on the impact on away fans, who bring so much spirit and atmosphere to many football games, and who are in danger of priced out of attending football?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point well. I will not comment on it, because wider issues have been raised, not least in the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport report on football governance, of which ticket prices form an important part.

Christopher Pincher: This Sunday in St Editha’s church, the Peel Society commemorates the 225th anniversary of the birth of Sir Robert Peel, the former Member for Tamworth. As a keen student of parliamentary history, Mr Speaker, you will know that Peel was a great reformer. He emancipated the Catholics, fathered the modern police force and repealed the corn laws. At the time, those measures were unpopular, but he believed them to be right, and was proved to be right. Therefore, in the spirit of Peel, may we have a statement from the Government on their key reforms to remind us that those things that may not find favour with all now will eventually be proved to be right?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the achievements of Sir Robert Peel, who was one of the founders of this Conservative party. In addition to the great reforms my hon. Friend mentions, Peel also oversaw legislation such as the Mines and Collieries Act 1842, which forbade the employment of women and children underground, and the Factories Act 1844, which limited working hours for children and women in factories. Although Benjamin Disraeli fashioned the phrase “two nations” and the principle of a one nation party, in a sense Sir Robert Peel implemented those things in policy terms well before that—recognising the responsibility we each have to one another. One of the great traditions of conservatism was born with him.
	I entirely share my hon. Friends desire for such a debate. Those who have a reforming instinct and introduce reforms they believe to be right are often the subject of considerable criticism. They look and hope to be justified in the long term.

Keith Vaz: I do not know how many teaspoons of sugar the Leader of the House had in his cup of coffee this morning, but he will know of the dangers of sugar and the fight against diabetes. As the architect of the responsibility deal, is he concerned that a third of school leavers of primary school age are either obese or overweight. Is it not time we had a statement or debate on the success of the responsibility deal?

Andrew Lansley: I introduced the responsibility deal with my colleagues at the Department of Health precisely because I am concerned about the number of people in this country who are overweight and obese—[Interruption.] Contrary to the sedentary remark from the Opposition Front Bench, the deal is working. I will not go into this at great length now, although perhaps we will find an opportunity to do so. The deal includes the calorie reduction challenge, which is one of the world-leading opportunities for us—not just the food industry, but all working together across the board—to consider the extent to which the virtual abolition of artificial trans fats, the reduction of saturated fats, the reduction of sugars in foods, and a reduction of calorie intake can get us to sustainable, healthy weight.

Mark Williams: Ceredigion county council is one of the latest local authorities to sign the community covenant and appoint an armed forces champion. May we have a debate on the housing, health care and benefit entitlements of veterans and, critically, on how we communicate those entitlements to the veterans to whom we owe so much?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and he is absolutely right. I value the way my own local authority and his have taken up the commitment to the armed forces covenant. He is right that we should make sure that it is understood, not least by veterans and their families. The first annual report on the military covenant showed good progress, but I know my colleagues, not least at the Ministry of Defence, will be very keen to take up his suggestion to consider how we can do more to publicise it.

Ian Paisley Jnr: In the past 10 years, £1 billion has been stolen from the UK Exchequer through the illicit trade in and smuggling of fuels, yet in the past 10 years no one has been jailed in Northern
	Ireland for these crimes—an atrocious record. Given that today another oil-laundering plant has been smashed by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, is it not time for a statement from the Treasury on the sentencing and arrest policy of HMRC officers, so that we can get these criminals behind bars where they belong?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. He will forgive me if I do not know HMRC’s immediate response, but I will of course talk to my colleagues at the Treasury and encourage them not only to respond to him but to update the House at an early point.

Neil Carmichael: May we have a debate in the House so that we can issue a clarion call to parish and town councillors to make use of neighbourhood planning to empower their local communities, shape their environment, promote local economic growth and defend green fields?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I have seen in the past how parish plans have successfully informed local development frameworks, but we have gone further and entrenched in statute the ability of those neighbourhood areas to shape their own area. That is very encouraging, and already more than 150 neighbourhood areas have been designated. He, like others, will be pleased that the Department is running a support programme from April to help local authorities with neighbourhood planning.

Ian Lucas: As the only parliamentary vote we have had this week was one where seven parties came together in the national interest to defeat the Conservative party, is it not an appropriate time to extend the cricketing metaphor employed by the Leader of the House, for the Government to draw stumps, to return to the pavilion—where most of the Conservative Back Benchers appear to have gone today—and to allow Members to have a say on the non-existence of a forward programme for this Government?

Andrew Lansley: The premises of that question are almost entirely wrong. I will not re-run the vote on Tuesday, but I am absolutely clear that what we set out to do was in the national interest—more particularly, it is in the democratic interest for votes to be of equal value. Those on the Opposition Benches have to explain why they have continuously, over many years, sought to frustrate people in having their vote count equally in more equal-sized constituencies. On the idea that there is no forward programme, what did the hon. Gentleman think we were doing when we published the mid-term review? That is a comprehensive statement not only about the delivery of the coalition agreement but about additional clear, strong priorities. This week, he saw the reform of child care and support for child care provision come through. Those and other priorities are coming through, as the mid-term review set out.

Simon Hart: This time last week, I asked for a departmental statement on departmental responses to letters, or the lack of them. The Leader of the Houser replied:
	“I will certainly be in touch with the Treasury and will perhaps encourage my colleagues there to respond to my hon. Friend before they answer questions here next Tuesday.”—[Official Report, 24 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 467.]
	That was last Tuesday. Nothing has happened. Will my right hon. Friend please come to my rescue once more?

Andrew Lansley: I am somewhat confused, Mr Speaker, because I have a letter to my hon. Friend from the Economic Secretary dated 28 January. I will ensure that a copy is placed in my hon. Friend’s hand.

Tom Blenkinsop: May we have a debate on the scrapping of council tax benefit? Currently, 5.9 million families receive this benefit, which is to be abolished on 1 April, and the Resolution Foundation says that a single parent using child care and working full time on the minimum wage could see their council tax jump from £220 to £797. This is happening at a time when the bedroom tax is coming in, when tax credits are being cut and when the minimum wage is being frozen for under-21s. May we have a debate, therefore, about why council tax benefit is being cut, while millionaires are getting a tax break?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman knows that council tax benefit is not being scrapped, but being localised, with local authorities taking responsibility. He also knows perfectly well that there are clear administrative benefits associated with local authorities taking responsibility for council tax benefit alongside their housing benefit responsibilities. Like any Opposition Member who asks about this, however, he must start by recognising that we are doing this because we are in the most appalling financial mess inherited from the last Labour Government, under whom spending on council tax benefit doubled. Welfare reform is necessary. They cannot create the problem and then resist every solution.

Chris White: Today, the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, which I introduced as a private Member’s Bill, will officially be implemented across the public sector. It marks the end of a two-year campaign to change how we design public service contracts and the beginning of a new campaign to ensure that the principles of the Act are properly implemented by public bodies. May we have a debate on public service commissioning, specifically on how we can ensure that the principles of social value are instilled across all public bodies?

Andrew Lansley: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. This important reform, for which he has been responsible, is about how we design public services and contracts. We are working across Government to build in social value. It needs to come not just from central Government, however, but with the support of local authorities and our partners, including in the health service. Social Enterprise UK has published a guidance document that will help commissioners and procurers of services to do it, but I undertake that I and my colleagues will try to ensure that we take every opportunity to see how we can take forward the principles of social value across public services.

Diana Johnson: There are 3,200 Motability scheme customers in Hull, many of whom are concerned about the changes to the
	personal independence payment being introduced in April. May we have a debate on the Floor of the House about how many of those people are likely to lose their vehicles in this new review that they will have to take part in?

Andrew Lansley: I am sure that the hon. Lady will have noticed—because she follows these matters closely—the exchanges in the other place, not least the response from my noble Friend Lord Freud. As the Prime Minister made clear at the Dispatch Box in Prime Minister’s questions, we continue to take very seriously our responsibility to ensure that those with disabilities see resources focused on those in greatest need.

David Nuttall: May we please have a statement on what progress has been made on the provision of improved broadband speeds in Greater Manchester? Many of my constituents, particularly those living in rural areas, are still forced to put up with very slow connection speeds, which, among other things, holds back rural businesses, and still have no idea when or whether they will benefit from the £1 million allocated by the Government to Greater Manchester to improve broadband access there.

Andrew Lansley: I understand my hon. Friend’s point. It is important that urban areas, which often find it easier to deliver superfast broadband on a commercial or near-commercial basis, recognise that in putting together their schemes they have a responsibility not to marginalise rural areas, where the commercial case for delivering superfast broadband is obviously much harder to make. That is why we are setting such ambitious targets for 2015. Broadband Delivery UK is supporting that, but, as I know from my authority, this requires not only resources from BDUK, but substantial additional funding. My local authority and others are getting together to make that happen.

Lyn Brown: I am sure that the Leader of the House will recall my asking for a general debate recently on the proliferation of betting shops. May I reiterate that call and request that the debate be framed in the context of the implementation of the Portas review and the Government’s localism agenda?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady will be aware that, following the Portas pilots funding, we are taking these forward along with additional packages, such as the high street innovation fund and the national markets fortnight campaign. Many of the 300 towns that did not get direct access to the Portas pilots are taking forward elements of their original plans across their high streets. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has taken the opportunity to encourage her colleagues across the House to make a submission to the Backbench Business Committee—as I think we discussed previously—but this seems to be exactly the sort of opportunity it might look for.

Karl McCartney: Worryingly, after two and a half years it seems that IPSA is still a four-letter swear-word to many of my colleagues in all parts of the House. Is my right hon. Friend the Leader
	of the House aware that every year the taxpayer is charged £11,500 to do our expenses individually? That is £7.5 million per annum charged by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. Does he think that is value for money in this time of austerity and does he think there is anything he can do about it?

Andrew Lansley: The answer to my hon. Friend is yes, I am aware of that. I am a member of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and one of our responsibilities is to scrutinise the estimates for IPSA. We have established in statute an independent organisation. It needs to be funded to do its job properly and although it is independent, just as this House is responsible for voting resources right across Government and the public sector, one of our jobs is to ensure that it delivers the kind of value for money that we would expect in any part of the public services.

Jonathan Reynolds: May we have a debate about the support offered to people, particularly those in skilled and technical jobs, when they face the prospect of unemployment? This week Total Petrochemicals in Stalybridge announced that it had entered into consultation with its work force on the future of the factory, due to tough trading conditions in the polystyrene market. Does the Leader of the House agree that at times like this it is incredibly important to ensure that we offer employees as much targeted support as possible to safeguard as many jobs as possible or help with the transition to new employment opportunities?

Andrew Lansley: I completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. Announcements of possible job losses in any constituency are a matter of considerable concern to that constituency’s Member of Parliament. The most important things are, that support is available through Jobcentre Plus and, if appropriate, the Work programme. Sometimes support can be readily available from employers, as part of a package. At the same time, it is not just about offering support through retraining and job placement; it is about making sure that the jobs are there. The most encouraging thing is that since the last election we have 1.1 million more private sector jobs in this country. That is what should give people the greatest hope for the future.

Pauline Latham: As the Leader of the House will be aware, Canada and Australia—members of the Commonwealth—along with other countries, such as the USA, Poland and Hungary, recognise the genocide called the Ukrainian holodomor, in which 7 million Ukrainians were systematically starved to death in 1932-33 by Stalin. Britain does not recognise that it was genocide. Is it not time for this to be rectified and may we have a debate?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend raises an issue of great historical and, for many, personal significance that has limited international recognition. She of course understands fully that it was an appalling tragedy. The UK fully recognises its significance. I have to tell her that the United Kingdom does not judge that the evidence is sufficiently unequivocal to categorise the holodomor as genocide as defined by the 1948 UN convention on
	genocide. However, we recognise that there is a division of opinion among academics on this matter. We will continue to follow the debate closely, particularly in the light of any further and emerging evidence.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Fire safety in places of public assembly and in historic buildings is very important. Has the fire Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis)—indicated whether he might issue a supportive statement encouraging parliamentary colleagues to undertake the fire safety awareness training available on the parliamentary intranet as that would be in the interests of our own safety, that of our staff and visitors to this place? Will the Leader of the House encourage the fire Minister to attend the fire evacuation drill planned for the Chamber at 12.30 pm on 11 February?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose record on supporting fire safety measures is recognised across the House. I will be here myself on 11 February. I am not sure of the position of my colleagues, but I encourage them to recognise that such attendance and fire awareness training are important things to do. I am aware from discussions in the House of Commons Commission of the precise extent of the take-up of that training among Members and staff. It is not as complete as it should be, so I encourage people to take that opportunity.

Robert Halfon: Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 1000?
	[That this House is disappointed that despite a unanimous vote in Parliament calling for an investigation, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has refused to hold a full inquiry into allegations of anti-competitive behaviour in the petrol and diesel market; notes that their decision is despite evidence of market abuse handed to them by hundreds of independent petrol stations, transport firms, small businesses and members of the public through RMI Petrol, the AA, petrolpromise.com and FairFuelUK; further notes that even the OFT report admits that over the last 10 years the combined gross margin for refining, wholesaling and retailing has increased by 3.4 pence per litre for petrol and 7.2 pence per litre for diesel and that taking account of inflation, this represents an increase in real terms of 14 per cent for petrol and 41 per cent for diesel; and therefore calls on the OFT to reconsider its decision not to hold a full inquiry and to step up the pressure on the oil companies and financial speculators who are pushing up prices at the pump.]
	May we have an urgent statement about yesterday’s shocking decision by the Office of Fair Trading not to hold a full inquiry into the rip-off oil companies that are ripping off motorists at the petrol pumps—especially given that the House unanimously supported, without a Division, the idea of having a full inquiry? The OFT decision flies in the face of thousands of pieces of evidence from FairFuelUK, petrolpromise.com, the AA and many other organisations. It is undermined even by its own report, which admits that over the last decade fuel margins have grown in real terms by 14% for petrol and an astonishing 41% for diesel.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who continues to argue forcefully for the fairest fuel prices possible for consumers. I completely understand that.
	As a Government, we have continually listened to my hon. Friend’s and other arguments, which is why the price of fuel at the pumps is 10p a litre lower than it would have been if we had allowed the last Government’s escalator to proceed. My hon. Friend understands, as do I, that the Office of Fair Trading is independent in its investigations and in the judgments it makes. There will be opportunities for colleagues to question Treasury Ministers, for example, about their approach to fuel pricing at the next Treasury questions.

Valerie Vaz: Like Mr Speaker’s lectures, the Christmas lectures at the Royal Institution are part of our cultural life. They were started by Michael Faraday in 1825 at 21 Albemarle street, which is now under threat. I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent debate and will he facilitate a meeting between leading scientists and the Minister for Universities and Science to save 21 Albemarle street for the nation?

Andrew Lansley: I cannot promise a debate, but I will of course talk to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science. The hon. Lady knows of his remarkable interest in, and his devotion to, supporting science, which is reflected across the Government. If I may presume for him, I think he might well be willing to take an opportunity to talk to scientists, without promising that it is the Government’s responsibility in any way.

Roger Williams: At last week’s business questions my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) raised the important issue of interest rate swap mis-selling. Today, the Financial Services Authority issued a report, and I believe that it would be good to have some parliamentary scrutiny of it. That might provide more publicity for the issue so that other businesses that have been involved but do not realise that they might be eligible for compensation start to take action.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and it is absolutely right to follow up the matter from last week. Upstairs this morning, the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards is taking further evidence on the mis-selling of interest rate swaps, forming part of its further inquiries into banking standards. In addition, I will talk to my colleagues about updating the House on what can be done to ensure that small businesses do not continue to be borne down by the cost of mis-sold policies of that kind.

Mark Lazarowicz: On that very point, I urge the Leader of the House to ensure that we do indeed get this type of report before the House. Many of the businesses concerned are in dire straits and need action and compensation now. They do not really want to wait for the outcome of reports and investigations by other Committees. Given that there are six weeks before the next Treasury questions, may we have a statement from a Treasury Minister about what can be done?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, which I completely understand. The length of time that it took for the FSA to undertake its investigation, and its explanation of the difficulties of investigating individual cases, demonstrate the scale of the problem
	in relation to any individual policy, but today’s report indicates the need for the sector across the board to try not to deepen the harm done to companies, in terms of the policies that they have taken up and also in terms of where they stand at present. I will consult my colleagues on possible opportunities for a debate, but it might also be possible to arrange one by means of an application to the Backbench Business Committee.

Glyn Davies: My local planning authority, Powys county council, is a small, hard-pressed rural authority which is currently having to divert £2.8 million of its funds to defend its rejection of wind farm applications in a public inquiry, while developers have access to unlimited moneys which are demanded from consumers. This is a David versus Goliath position. May we have an urgent debate on the way in which appeals are funded? That would give us an opportunity to demonstrate that the Government are not entirely on the side of Goliath.

Andrew Lansley: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me when I say that I did not listen to all the questions to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and his fellow Ministers, which I think may have touched on the issues that he has raised. I will of course discuss those issues with them, but it must be said that there often seems to be a disparity between the resources available to those making planning applications and those available to the—sometimes small—local authorities that respond to them.

Paul Flynn: On 10 January, the Foreign Secretary gave me what he described as a “broad assurance” that there would be a vote in the House on the deployment of soldiers abroad, following the precedent of 2003. The Leader of the House rested his refusal to allow that on the narrow point that we are not in conflict in Mali. We have up to 400 troops there; many of them are armed, and if they are attacked, they will use those arms. That sounds very much like conflict to me.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle). Given that the country is now weary and wary of avoidable wars, is it not important for us to debate the issue, so that the House can establish what precisely is the terrorist threat to Britain from Tuareg nationalists?

Andrew Lansley: I am sure that the House would not wish to repeat what I said earlier—which I think was perfectly understandable in the circumstances—but I might add that our actions have been in response to what were, in effect, urgent and emergency requests from, in the first instance, the French authorities, with the support of the Malian authorities. That engages, to an extent, the question of this being an emergency. However, we will constantly keep in mind the question of whether it is appropriate, under the convention, which we respect and to which we will adhere, to present the issue to the House for debate.

Kevin Brennan: Why has there been no statement, either oral or written, about the decision—announced in the media this morning—to
	scrap the competition for the First Great Western rail franchise? If no Minister will come and explain that decision to the House, will the Leader of the House contact the Department for Transport after business questions and ensure that every Member who is affected by it—including my hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who are in the Chamber now—receives a letter today containing details of the reasons for a decision that affects our constituents very deeply?

Andrew Lansley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, because the matter is market-sensitive, it was the subject of an announcement to the markets and a written ministerial statement this morning, so the House was informed.

Kevin Brennan: It was not advertised.

Andrew Lansley: No, it was not, because it is market-sensitive, but a written ministerial statement was laid before the House this morning. However, I will check with my colleagues at the Department for Transport to establish whether they have notified Members across the House about the three franchises on which announcements were made in that statement.

William Bain: When will the Leader of the House schedule a debate on the massive rise in unemployment among the disabled that there has been under this Government? It has increased by 42,000 since mid-2010, to a record 434,000. Is he aware that it will be added to by a further 44 sacked workers from the Remploy factory in Springburn in my constituency, which this Government are disgracefully allowing to close today?

Andrew Lansley: Of course, I am aware of the situation in relation to Remploy because I was sitting on the Front Bench when the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) responded sympathetically and well to questions from Members. If we had sufficient Government time to be able to debate employment, I would love to do so because we would be able to say many very positive things. Unfortunately, the nature of time and the allocation of time in the House is such that most Government time is committed to the progress of legislation and addressing a number of specific requirements. Of course, Opposition time and Back-Bench business time is available, and I know that employment issues of all kinds are right at the forefront of the interests of Members.

Barry Gardiner: May we have an urgent debate on pathology services in north-west London? Since The Doctors Laboratory—TDL—took over those services last month, doctors have complained that bloods are not stored or transported safely. One general practitioner has reported that 300 results have gone missing, that an excessive number of potassium results are high and that INR results are unexpectedly low. As the Leader of the House well knows, that could lead to a misdiagnosis and, consequently, an increase in warfarin, which could be fatal. Those matters have now been reported to the Care Quality Commission as have concerns of all the
	GPs in the area and the North West London Hospitals NHS Trust. The matter is urgent and I hope he will create time to debate it.

Andrew Lansley: As my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is on the Bench and will have heard what the hon. Gentleman had to say, he might have noted it. If my recollection is right, the hon. Gentleman has described a process that was a consequence of the Carter review undertaken under the previous Administration. The then Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), is in his place on the Opposition Front Bench, so he might like to have a word with the hon. Gentleman to explain why the Carter review set out specifically to rationalise and, in some cases, to secure the outsourced management of pathology services.

Wayne David: Last but not least, Mr Speaker. The past week has not been good for animals: we have heard numerous references to stalking horses; we have heard a Minister using American slang in referring to “discombobulated monkeys”; we have had a Westminster Hall debate on hunting of foxes; and one Conservative Member is reported to have referred to the Liberal Democrats as rodents leaving a sinking ship. May we have a debate on how animals can be kept out of politics?

Andrew Lansley: In my experience, when we are discussing wild animals in circuses, and when we are discussing horsemeat up in Westminster Hall and elsewhere, animals seem to be in politics all the time.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Trusts (Capital and Income) Act 2013
	Statute Law (Repeals) Act 2013
	Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act 2013
	Disabled Persons’ Parking Badges Act 2013.
	European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Act 2013
	Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013.

South London Healthcare NHS Trust

Jeremy Hunt: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the future of South London Healthcare NHS Trust.
	The NHS exists to provide patients with the highest levels of care and compassion, and it does so in a way that is more equitable than the system in any other country in the world—it provides comprehensive care, free at the point of need. But to be true to those values, different parts of the NHS need to be financially sustainable. Financial problems left unaddressed become clinical problems, not least because money used to fund deficits cannot be used for patient care. The South London Healthcare NHS Trust is the most financially challenged in the country, with a deficit of £65 million per annum.
	It currently spends some £60 million a year, or 16% of its annual income, to service two private finance initiative contracts signed in 1998. For this and other reasons, repeated local attempts to resolve the financial crisis at the trust have failed. As a result, the trust is losing more than £1 million every week. In the three years since it was formed in 2009, it has generated a deficit of £153 million. That figure will rise to more than £200 million by the end of this financial year, a huge amount of money that has to be diverted away from front-line patient care.
	After consulting with the trust, its commissioners and the London strategic health authority, my predecessor as Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, instituted the special administration process, which includes a period of intense local engagement. Matthew Kershaw, former chief executive of Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust, was appointed as the trust special administrator in July 2012. I would like to put on record my thanks to him and his team for his exceptionally detailed and thorough work.
	Mr Kershaw had the extremely difficult task of finding a clinically and financially sustainable way forward for the South London Healthcare NHS Trust. Reluctantly, he concluded that only by looking beyond the boundaries of the trust to the wider health community could he put forward a viable solution. I support that analysis.
	I received his recommendations on 7 January. Six of his seven recommendations were as follows: first, that over the next three years, all three hospitals within the trust, Queen Elizabeth hospital in Woolwich, Queen Mary’s in Sidcup and the Princess Royal in Bromley, should make the full £74.9 million of efficiencies he has identified; secondly, that Queen Mary’s in Sidcup be transferred to Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust and developed into a hub for the provision of health and social care in Bexley; thirdly, that all vacant or poorly utilised premises be vacated, and sold where possible; fourthly, that the Department of Health pay the additional annual funds to cover the excess costs of the PFI buildings at the Queen Elizabeth and Princess Royal hospitals; fifthly, that the South London Healthcare NHS Trust be dissolved, with each of its hospitals taken over by neighbouring NHS and foundation trusts; and sixthly, to aid implementation, that the Department of Health write off the accumulated debt of the trust so as not to set the new trusts up to fail, that the Department of Health
	provide additional funds to cover the implementation of his recommendations and that a programme board be appointed under an independent chair, reporting to Sir David Nicholson as chief executive of the NHS Commissioning Board, to ensure the changes are effectively delivered. I have accepted each of these recommendations in full.
	As a consequence of what he found, Mr Kershaw also recommended that services be reconfigured beyond the confines of South London Healthcare NHS Trust across all of south-east London. This part of his recommendation included reducing the number of accident and emergency departments across the area from five to four, replacing the A and E department at University Hospital Lewisham with a non-admitting urgent care centre, reducing the number of obstetrician-led maternity units from five to four and downgrading the current obstetrician-led maternity unit at University Hospital Lewisham to a stand alone midwife-led birthing centre. Each obstetrician-led maternity units would also have a midwife-led birthing centre. The recommendation also included co-locating paediatric emergency and in-patient services with the four A and E units, with paediatric urgent care provided at Lewisham, Guy’s and Queen Mary’s hospitals. Finally, he recommended that University Hospital Lewisham should become a centre for non-complex elective procedures, such as hip and knee replacements, to serve the entire population of south-east London.
	The public campaign surrounding services at Lewisham hospital has highlighted just how important it is to the local community. I respect and recognise the sense of unfairness that people feel because their hospital has been caught up in the financial problems of its neighbour. However, solving the financial crisis next door is also in the interests of the people of Lewisham because they too depend on the services that are currently part of the South London Healthcare NHS Trust. None the less, I understand their real concerns about how any changes could affect their access to vital health services. Those concerns are echoed by Lewisham clinical commissioning group and many clinicians at Lewisham hospital. I have had in-depth discussions with the hon. Members representing those affected who have reflected those concerns to me.
	As a result of those concerns, I asked the NHS medical director, Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, to review the recommendations and to consider three things: whether there was sufficient clinical input into the development of the recommendations; whether there is a strong case that the recommendations will lead to improved patient care in the local area; and whether they are underpinned by a clear clinical evidence base, as set out in the third of the four tests for reconfigurations.
	On the matter of clinical input, a highly experienced clinical advisory group, led by local GP, Dr Jane Fryer, and including eight trust medical directors, six clinically qualified clinical commissioning group chairs, the London ambulance service medical director, the local director for trauma and three directors of nursing, supported the trust special administrator. Further scrutiny and challenge was provided by an external clinical panel, which included representatives from the Royal Colleges of Midwives and of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The panel was chaired by Professor Chris Welsh, the
	strategic health authority medical director for the midlands and the east of England. Both groups included respected national and local clinicians. They built on years of previous work in this area and held a series of clinical workshops in August and September last year. Sir Bruce was satisfied that there had indeed been sufficient clinical input.
	On the issue of better care and clinical evidence, the recommendations provide for the adoption, for the first time in south-east London, of the 2012 pan-London standards for acute care, which are the standards that all six local CCGs have said that they want to commission for emergency and maternity care. They define the best available clinical practice and set the bar higher than that provided by most other acute providers in England.
	Sir Bruce agreed that the adoption of these standards could not be achieved without a reduction in the number of sites delivering acute in-patient care. Such a reduction will enable the necessary concentration of resources and senior clinical staff. A similar approach has already led to significant improvements in stroke, major trauma and cardiovascular disease services throughout London, saving hundreds of lives.
	For both emergency and maternity care, Sir Bruce found no evidence that patients would be put at risk through increased journey times. The whole population of south-east London will continue to be within 30 minutes of a blue light transfer to an A and E department, with the typical journey time being on average only one minute longer. Accessing consultant-led maternity services will involve an increase in journey times on average of two to three minutes by private or public transport. Sir Bruce therefore concluded that there should be no impact on the quality of care due to the small increase in travel time.
	On the issue of maternity services, the expert clinical panel advising the TSA was not willing to support the increased risk to patients of having an obstetrician-led unit at Lewisham without intensive care services. As achieving the London-wide clinical standards will be possible only with the consolidation of the number of sites with these facilities, Sir Bruce supports the proposal for this unit to be replaced with a free-standing, midwife-led unit at Lewisham hospital. This will continue to deal with at least 10% of existing activity and potentially up to 60%, and £36 million of additional investment has been earmarked to ensure that there is sufficient capacity at other sites.
	Turning to the emergency care proposals, Sir Bruce was concerned that the recommendation for a non-admitting urgent care centre at Lewisham may not lead, in all cases, to improved patient care. While those with serious injury or illness would be better served by a concentration of specialist A and E services, this would not be the case for those patients requiring short, relatively uncomplicated treatments, or a temporary period of supervision. To better serve those patients, who will often be frail and elderly, and would arrive by non-blue light ambulances, Sir Bruce recommends that Lewisham hospital should retain a smaller A and E service with 24/7 senior emergency medical cover. With these additional clinical safeguards and the impact that this is likely to have on patient and clinician behaviour, Sir Bruce estimates that the new service could continue to see up to three quarters of those currently attending Lewisham A and E.
	Allowing Lewisham to retain its A and E would help to reduce the level of increased demand at hospitals with larger A and E services, while an additional £37 million of investment will further expand services at these hospitals for more serious conditions. Sir Bruce advised that patients with those more serious conditions should now be taken to King’s, QE, Bromley or St Thomas’s—not for financial reasons, but to increase their chances of survival.
	On the issue of paediatric care, Sir Bruce recognised the high-quality paediatric services at Lewisham and that any replacement would have to offer even better clinical outcomes and patient experience. His opinion is that this is possible, but dependent on very clear protocols for primary ambulance conveyance, a walk-in paediatric urgent care service at Lewisham, and rapid transfer protocols for any sick children who would be better treated elsewhere. He is clear that this will require careful pathway planning and will need to be a key focus of implementation.
	With these caveats, Sir Bruce was content to assert that there is a strong case that the recommendations are likely to lead to improved care for the residents of south-east London and that they are underpinned by clear clinical evidence. He believes that overall these proposals, as amended, could save up to 100 lives every year through higher clinical standards.
	Yesterday, 30 January, as no viable alternative plan had been put forward, and in light of Sir Bruce’s opinion, I decided to accept the recommendations of the trust special administrator, subject to the amendments suggested by Sir Bruce. It is important to be clear that my acceptance of these recommendations is conditional on Monitor approving the proposals relating to foundation trusts, and on my Department negotiating an appropriate level of transitional funding with organisations such as King’s Partners.
	Owing to the size of the task, there is a significant level of risk associated with achieving the identified savings. I recognise that the additional clinical safeguards that I have put in place will marginally increase these financial risks, but on balance I have made the judgment that this is worth it if it means that local patients are reassured that they will gain from an additional better service, rather than losing their A and E.
	I believe the amended proposals meet the four tests required for local reconfigurations and I am therefore content for the process now to proceed to implementation. I expect the South London Healthcare NHS Trust to be dissolved by no later than 1 October 2013. The implementation of these proposals will be challenging and complex. It needs to be planned for carefully and will not happen overnight. I call on all organisations, hospitals and commissioners to offer their full support during the coming years to achieve the ambition of these proposals for the benefit of the people of south-east London, and I commend this statement to the House.

Andy Burnham: Just when we thought this Government’s mismanagement of the national health service could not get any worse, it just has. Let us be clear about what the Secretary of State has announced today. He has at last accepted recommendations that were agreed by the previous Government but then delayed
	by his predecessor’s moratorium, thereby deepening the financial problems of South London Healthcare NHS Trust. And he has rejected an outrageous proposal that Lewisham hospital should lose its accident and emergency department—a proposal that never should have been made in the first place, but which has cost more than £5 million of precious NHS cash on accountants in the process, enough to give some of the 5,000 nurses who were sacked their jobs back.
	But the Secretary of State has accepted the principle that a successful local hospital can have its services downgraded to pay for the failures of another trust. That takes the NHS into new territory. The Secretary of State has just crossed a line and set dangerous precedents—namely, that in his new market-driven NHS, finance takes precedence and any hospital, no matter how successful, is vulnerable to changes through backdoor reconfiguration, that success can be punished and failure rewarded, and that a community can see its A and E and maternity services downgraded without proper consultation and without clinical justification.
	There will be no cheers for the statement in Lewisham and it will send a chill wind through any community worried about its hospital services. There is now utter confusion about the Government’s policy on hospital reconfiguration. In three years, they have gone from moratorium to pandemonium. Across the country, half-baked cost-driven proposals to close A and Es and maternity units are being foisted on local communities without evidence of how that can be done safely and without putting lives at risk, yet at the same time, A and Es everywhere are under severe pressure. Thousands more patients are waiting for more than four hours to be seen and there are queues of ambulances lined up outside.
	In that context, it is simply not tenable to downgrade any A and E department without first establishing a clear clinical case for how it can be done without compromising patient safety, but that is what the Government are doing hereThey have set up a financially driven process and thrown together a clinical justification that is not independent but drawn up in his own Department, leaving the Secretary of State’s so-called four tests in tatters. Let me remind him that the fourth test is that any proposal for change must have “demonstrable support from commissioners”. Let me quote to him the chair of the Lewisham clinical commissioning group, Dr Helen Tattersfield, who has said:
	“If the TSA proceeds as currently planned it is my belief that not only will this result in a reduction of quality and provision of health services for Lewisham residents with huge risks to health outcomes but also the effective end of clinical commissioning in Lewisham.”
	It is clearly the case that the proposals that the Secretary of State has announced today will lead, in Dr Tattersfield’s words, to a reduction of quality and provision in Lewisham. These changes are opposed by the doctors he promised to put in charge of the NHS, and therefore clearly fail the fourth test that he has set out.
	Furthermore, is the Secretary of State confident that what he has announced today is legal? We warned him that he was going beyond the powers in the Health Act 2009. He said that he would commission fresh legal advice. Will he publish it today so that there can be a proper debate on the legal position? He mentioned PFI, but is it not the case that the schemes he mentioned
	were initiated and negotiated under the Major Government? He said that he had consulted South London Healthcare NHS Trust, but is it not a fact that it found out about this process from the media?
	This decision will damage fragile trust in the way that the NHS manages changes to hospitals. The Government need to get back to first principles. Will the Secretary of State confirm, learning from this debacle, that in future no proposal to downgrade or close A and E and maternity services will ever get out of the starting blocks if it does not have a proper clinical case to support it?
	Will the Secretary of State today issue an apology to the people of Lewisham? How on earth are they expected to have confidence in the figures he has announced from a clinical review thrown together—cobbled together —in his Department in a matter of days? He has caused huge distress to them but he has also failed to listen to them. Thousands of people have put their lives on hold to fundraise, to lobby, to campaign: 52,000 names on a petition; 25,000 people on a march. This community have rallied together to defend their local hospital, led by the fantastic efforts of the local MPs, but more than that, they have fought valiantly for every community worried about this Government’s cavalier approach to our country’s most valued institution. This community have stood up to an out-of-touch Government who think they can treat some of more deprived parts of our country with utter disdain. This community have achieved something today, but I am certain that they will continue the fight—and let me say that they will have our support. Will the Secretary of State confirm that what he has just announced takes away their right of appeal to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel? If that is the case, are they not justified in continuing the fight to stop this Government riding roughshod over the people of Lewisham and south London?
	What we have seen here today is the first glimpse of the new market-driven NHS that the Government have created, where the moneymen and not the medics are calling the shots. We have seen another chapter in the unfolding omnishambles that is this Government—this one, sadly, could be entitled the Lewishambles. We have seen a scandalous waste of money on a solution that will not be acceptable to people in Lewisham—and it is not acceptable to people anywhere. The Secretary of State is asking this House to accept the unacceptable. We will not do that for Lewisham and we will not do it for anywhere else.

Jeremy Hunt: I am afraid that the shadow Health Secretary clearly wrote his response before he read my statement. Listening to him this morning, he has never sounded further away from being part of the Government-in-waiting that he aspires to be.
	Let me say this to the right hon. Gentleman: the apology over what is happening in South London Healthcare NHS Trust needs to come from Labour Members, because they were the people who failed to resolve this problem over very many years. It was their party that set up two PFI deals, signed in 1998, which have been incredibly dangerous. It was their party that created a financial situation that means that £1 million every week is being bled from front-line patient care in
	order to fund a deficit, and that 100 lives every year are not being saved that could be saved in Lewisham and the whole of south-east London.
	What I did not hear from the right hon. Gentleman was any contrition about the fact that this incredibly difficult problem was something that his Government and, indeed, he as Health Secretary totally failed to resolve. Let me remind him that the legislation that I followed actually came from the Labour party, which passed it when it was in government. He asked me to confirm that the people of Lewisham have no right of appeal to the IRP against this decision, but who was it who stripped them of that right to appeal? It was him when his Government passed the legislation. Nothing that he has said has contained a single alternative proposal to deal with this problem. If he was being responsible as shadow Health Secretary, he would have come up with just one proposal, but he did not come up with a single one or tell the House about any of his ideas.
	The right hon. Gentleman talked about the pressure on A and E, but we will take no lessons from him. We met our A and E targets last year, whereas in Wales, where the Labour party is cutting the NHS budget by 8%, the A and E targets have not been met since 2009.
	I am afraid that what we have heard—I hope that other contributors will strike a different tone—is a very disappointing response from the Labour party. The shadow Health Minister, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), who is not on the Opposition Front Bench today—perhaps this will explain why—has said that Labour would not do what she called the “easy politics” of opposing every single reconfiguration, but what we have heard this morning is easy politics from a party that closed at least 12 A and Es and at least nine maternity units while it was in office. The right hon. Gentleman needs to recognise that the responsible thing for a Health Secretary to do is that which will save the most lives, and that is what I have announced this morning.

Bob Neill: My hon. Friends the Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) and for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett) are on duty on a Public Bill Committee, but they wish to associate their views with my question. We thank the Health Secretary and congratulate him on taking a tough but necessary decision to deal with a mess that was not of his making and that was inherited from the Labour party. Does he accept that, thanks to the intervention of Sir Bruce Keogh’s review, more care has been taken, with both an evidence base and a consultation, than under the previous Government with regard to the reduction of A and E services at Queen Mary’s, Sidcup? Will he also help me by explaining the likely time frame for the conclusion of discussions with King’s Partners on transitional funding, which is particularly important for those of us whose constituents are predominantly served by the Princess Royal university hospital in Farnborough?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for his constructive involvement in all the discussions we have been having to resolve this difficult issue, particularly with respect to his own constituents. He is absolutely right, because in the end the things that matter most are the clinical
	considerations. I thought it was extremely important to take advice from the NHS medical director, Sir Bruce Keogh, and I have taken that advice. He is absolutely clear that this will save lives, which is my biggest responsibility.
	My hon. Friend is also right to say that the success of these proposals depends on negotiations with King’s Partners about the potential merger that it is involved in, and we want to conclude those as quickly as possible. They are a very important part of this issue. It is our ambition to proceed as quickly as possible for the sake of the people of south London, who need certainty about the future provision of their health services, but we have some difficult negotiations to conclude in order to make that happen.

Joan Ruddock: The only reason the proposals to close the A and E at Lewisham and downgrade the maternity services have not gone ahead in full is, of course, because of the enormous protests of over 50,000 local people and the almost total opposition of all consultants and GPs, including the GP commissioning group. Today’s proposals are an absolute sham and a shambles and utterly unacceptable to all of us who represent people in Lewisham.
	Does the Health Secretary agree that, instead of allowing this rushed TSA process, which is completely unsuitable for the reconfiguration that he now proposes, he should allow the GP commissioning group to do the job for which he set it up, namely to lead a consultation process, properly, in order to understand the clinical needs of local people, whether the merger between Lewisham and Woolwich hospitals should go ahead, and to meet the real clinical needs of the local people? Will he also acknowledge that no due diligence was done in respect of the proposals, and that Lewisham hospital will need the strongest guarantees that it will not be led into a new, unsustainable trust by his proposals?

Jeremy Hunt: May I say to the right hon. Lady that a “sham and a shambles” are what I inherited and what I am dealing with, not what I am bequeathing through my announcement this morning. With respect to the GP-led clinical commissioning group in Lewisham, of course I understand its opposition to the proposals put forward by the trust special administrator, but it supports the principle that complex procedures should be done from fewer sites. That is an important point. Inevitably, when we are reducing the number of sites for complex medical procedures, the people in the areas where those procedures will no longer happen will often be opposed to the changes. That is what has happened here, but the group supports the principles behind what the trust special administrator has said.
	The right hon. Lady’s concern that we are setting up a new trust that will not be sustainable is precisely why I am taking this extremely difficult decision today. Lewisham hospital has proposed that it and Queen Elizabeth hospital in Woolwich should be allowed to work out their own way of dealing with the deficit, but that was precisely the problem that happened when the South London Healthcare Trust was set up. Trusts with deficits were put together in a marriage that, in the end, failed to address those difficult decisions. My responsibility to her constituents is to address those issues and to give them certainty about the provision of their health services.
	Already, her constituents who have a stroke or a heart attack do not go to Lewisham hospital. They go to Tommy’s or Guy’s or other places where those specialist services can be delivered, and they get better treatment. We are expanding that principle through what I am announcing today, and it will save around 100 lives a year. That is something that she should welcome.

Bob Stewart: I find it rather strange that a successful hospital is being slashed when others are being saved. I am particularly concerned about some of the figures on which these decisions have been made, and I really require my right hon. Friend to justify the financial figures that support this case. I am personally very worried about where babies will be born in Lewisham, and about the loss of the full A and E services there. I am not very happy about this, and I clearly do not support the closure.

Jeremy Hunt: There is not a closure. Let us talk about maternity deaths. London has a higher rate of maternity deaths than most other parts of the country, and that is something that any responsible Health Secretary should try to tackle. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives agree that the way to reduce the number of maternal deaths, in which London does not score well, is to centralise the facilities that deal with the more complex births in fewer sites, where surgeons can get more experience and deliver better clinical outcomes. That is what this proposal is doing. It will lead to fewer maternal deaths in Lewisham and south-east London. It will also mean that, for the first time, south-east London will do something that it does not do at the moment, which is to meet the London-wide clinical quality standards. That must be the most important thing for the people of south-east London.

Heidi Alexander: The Secretary of State’s announcement today might appear to offer something of a lifeline to Lewisham’s A and E, but it is far from the emergency and maternity services that my constituents and the people of south-east London deserve. I remain concerned about maternity services in south-east London. Between April 2011 and November 2012, maternity services were suspended 37 times in south-east London. There are 4,000 babies a year born at Lewisham. Can the Secretary of State give me an assurance that the money spent on increasing capacity for maternity services at other hospitals will be spent in the hospitals where Lewisham mums will actually go?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Lady is absolutely right that any change such as this has to be done extremely carefully, and we are investing an extra £36 million to expand the capacity of neighbouring consultant-led maternity services to make sure that they can cope with the extra demand, but may I urge the hon. Lady to understand the clinical rationale behind what is happening? London has halved its stroke mortality rate, because it reduced the number of hospitals treating people with strokes from 32 to eight. As a result, her constituents in Lewisham now go for their stroke treatment to the Princess Royal and King’s. That has led to fewer deaths in Lewisham and many other places. We need to do the same for high-risk pregnancies, and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has established that women with
	high-risk pregnancies would prefer to travel a little further if that means they will get better clinical outcomes, which is what this is all about.

Simon Hughes: I appreciate the thoughtful way in which the Secretary of State has tried to deal with a problem that is absolutely not of his making, and I appreciate the fact that he has changed key recommendations and that there will be a continuing A and E service at Lewisham, dealing with up to 75% of the work. However, like other colleagues, I do not therefore understand why there cannot be continuing maternity care there as well, because the key point is that there should be intensive care provision on the site and maternity care services should be provided. I also say to him honestly that I have not heard of any evidence that the key fourth test—support from GP commissioners—has been passed, and I ask him to give me an assurance that no plans will go ahead until and unless the GP commissioning body in Lewisham agrees.

Jeremy Hunt: Let me take those two points in reverse order. First, on GP commissioners, all six local commissioning groups support the principles upon which these proposals were developed. To meet the London-wide clinical quality standards, which are not being met in south-east London at present, it is necessary to centralise the provision of more complex services in the same way that we have already successfully done for heart attacks and strokes. That principle applies as much to complex births and complex pregnancies as it does to strokes and heart attacks, and it will now apply for the people of Lewisham to conditions including pneumonia, meningitis and if someone breaks a hip. People will get better clinical care as a result of these changes. That is the most difficult project in all the work of the trust special administrator. The project has been to try to resolve an unsustainable financial situation while improving clinical care for the people of south-east London, and I think that, in the end, we have got a set of proposals that does that.

Tessa Jowell: The Secretary of State will be aware of the dismay with which this statement will be heard across south London. Whatever eloquent argument he advances, the people of south London will take from what he said that the maternity and A and E services at Lewisham have been downgraded.
	I have had the opportunity to look briefly at the wording of his statement, and I am alarmed by the degree of risk that Sir Bruce Keogh identifies, particularly in relation to the relocation of the paediatric service. The clinical outcomes to which he refers are dependent on extremely difficult interconnections among ambulance services, receiving staff and inpatient beds, and rely on them all working effectively. He rightly recognises the knock-on effect for other hospitals, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) and I, together with all south London MPs, also recognise those knock-on effects. Given that King’s college hospital has seen a fourfold increase in cancelled operations since 2009-10, we are therefore very concerned about the consequences
	for the care of the constituents whom we represent. We are also concerned that the responsibility for the PRU, which King’s is prepared to welcome, will be properly and adequately financed.

Jeremy Hunt: The right hon. Lady talks about the risks that Sir Bruce alludes to in his analysis of the trust special administrator’s proposals. Those risks are precisely why I have not accepted the proposals in their entirety and have put in place a series of additional safeguards.
	Not resolving this issue, which is effectively what the Labour party is calling for because it has put forward no alternative proposals, would carry a high degree of risk. It would mean that south London would not meet the London-wide clinical quality standards. It would mean that £1 million a week would continue to be diverted from front-line patient care into funding an unsustainable deficit. That would be bad for her constituents and those in neighbouring constituencies.
	We must look at the south-east London health care economy as a whole, but the objective must be to improve the services that people receive. That is a difficult balance to get right, but I think that we have the right balance in the proposals that I have outlined this morning.

Stephen Dorrell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the very difficult decisions that he has announced to the House reflect the application in south London of something that is needed across the health service—a willingness to address difficult issues, but led always by clinical evidence on how to deliver the best possible outcomes for the patients who rely on the service?

Jeremy Hunt: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. It would be totally irresponsible for me as Health Secretary to fail to take a decision that could save as many lives as I believe this decision will save. If we are to save more lives in A and E and reduce the number of maternity deaths in London, it involves taking difficult decisions. The disappointment for me is that the Labour party has chosen to jump on an Opposition bandwagon, rather than putting forward its own solution to deal with the clinical issues in south-east London. Unfortunately, the Opposition are playing to the gallery. That is not what a Government-in-waiting should be doing.

Jim Dowd: I start by congratulating the Secretary of State on admitting in his statement something that has been denied from the outset: that this is a reconfiguration. Indeed, it is a back-door reconfiguration.
	I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and I can adequately represent the outrage and anger of the people of Lewisham at the sheer unfairness of this proposal. The Secretary of State is wrong to say that Matthew Kershaw concluded that his review needed to go wider than South London Healthcare NHS Trust; he started from that premise and said so openly at the meeting in July at the office of the Secretary of State’s predecessor.
	Is the Secretary of State aware that even the maternity proposal will mean that a double rota is necessary at King’s College hospital and Queen Elizabeth hospital
	Woolwich, because it will increase the expected annual number of births at both units to more than 8,000? That will lead to worse services and less choice for patients. The fact that it does not have the support of local commissioners does not seem to register with the Secretary of State.
	Will the Secretary of State say whether it was really necessary to spend £5.5 million of taxpayers’ money to demonstrate that his four tests are meaningless and that the guarantees and undertakings of this Tory-Liberal Government are worthless?

Jeremy Hunt: First, let me say to the hon. Gentleman that this is a reconfiguration. However, the normal processes for reconfigurations have been suspended because of legislation that was passed by the Government who were in power until 2010 and whom he supported.
	The trust special administrator, Matthew Kershaw, looked extensively at whether there was an option within South London Healthcare NHS Trust to solve the problem. He invited expressions of interest from other people who might run the hospitals in the group, but nobody was able to come forward with a proposal that would solve the problem within the geographical confines of the trust. Indeed, nobody—not the Labour party, nor any of the people who oppose these changes—has come forward with a proposal that would not impact on neighbouring health care economies.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke about choice. Choice is not just about the number of hospitals that one could go to, but about the number of good hospitals that one could go to. Nowhere in south London currently meets the London-wide clinical quality standards. As a result of my decision today, the whole of south-east London will meet those standards and it will have some of the highest quality care in London for people who use A and E and maternity services.
	On the cost of the process, £5.5 million is the cost of failure—the total failure of the last Government to address this issue when they could have done, rather than bequeath the highest deficit anywhere in the NHS.

Nick de Bois: The Secretary of State recognises that Lewisham is the victim of an unfair decision as a result of failed PFI and failed finance, which were not of his making. He will recognise the striking similarities with Chase Farm hospital, which has also been downgraded because of the appalling PFI arrangements at neighbouring hospitals. He knows that I utterly oppose that decision. Given the present concerns, particularly with regard to implementation, will he meet me and a cross-party delegation to look closely at these matters?

Jeremy Hunt: I recognise how hard my hon. Friend has campaigned on behalf of his constituents and how deeply they feel about these issues. He knows that the decision has been made. We want to get the safe implementation of that decision absolutely right and I would be more than happy to meet him to discuss how we can best ensure that that happens.

Clive Efford: The Secretary of State inherited a mess that was created by his Conservative predecessor, who abandoned the “A picture of health” process. That led to the betrayal of my constituents in
	respect of what they expected to come out of that process, particularly at Queen Mary’s hospital Sidcup. When he opposed “A picture of health”, the former Secretary of State said that he would decide on that closure based on what local clinicians said. In this process, it is clear that local clinicians are opposed to the closure of the A and E. Will the Secretary of State therefore say what value he places on the views of the local commissioners, who are completely opposed to what he proposes?

Jeremy Hunt: Of the six local clinical commissioning groups, five support these proposals. One group is against the proposals, but it accepts the principles behind them, including the idea that to deliver higher quality care, we must perform complex surgery at fewer sites. That will mean that more of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents have better care outcomes. I remind him that if his Government had resolved this problem when they were in office before 2010, none of us would be having this discussion today.

Nick Raynsford: The Secretary of State has accepted all Matthew Kershaw’s recommendations. He will know that the trust special administrator recommended a substantial investment package to support the changes that he recommended, including £161 million of capital funding and £55 million of transitional funding over three years. In his statement, the Secretary of State referred to just £36 million of capital spending for maternity and £37 million for A and E. That is £73 million lower than Mr Kershaw’s recommendation. There was no reference in the statement to the transitional funding of £55 million. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether Mr Kershaw’s funding recommendations have been accepted?

Jeremy Hunt: We accept that very detailed analysis was used by Matthew Kershaw to come up with those numbers. We will look at them very carefully. However, we need to have sensitive negotiations with the new partners who will be part of making this solution happen before the final numbers are agreed on.

Teresa Pearce: When modelling future need, what account did the administrator or the Secretary of State take of the fact that there will be increased health needs due to the increases in child poverty and homelessness in my constituency, as is predicted by every expert on these matters? The efficiency proposals rely to a large extent on keeping vulnerable elderly people out of hospital and caring for them in the community. Given the local authority budget cuts and the fact that some private companies that deliver those services in Bexley in my area are slashing the wages and conditions of staff, how does the Secretary of State think those services will be improved? Will he urgently review the services for elderly people to ensure that they stack up with the proposals that he has outlined today? This morning, the Secretary of State has said a number of times that these plans will save lives. I sincerely hope that he is right. If time shows that he is not right, will he resign?

Jeremy Hunt: In such matters, what a Minister does is take very seriously the medical advice they are given—I am sure the hon. Lady’s party was exactly the same
	when it was in power. Medical advice suggests that the way forward I am deciding on and announcing this morning will save 100 lives, and I am taking the decision on that basis. The hon. Lady would do no differently in my shoes.
	For child poverty, changes in demography are taken into account in the modelling used, but the overriding priority has been to improve clinical services. That will make the biggest difference to the most socially disadvantaged people, including the frail elderly who—I agree with the hon. Lady—are often the least well served by our current NHS structures and the silos between what is done by local authorities and the NHS. I and my ministerial colleagues in government are currently doing a lot of work to break down those barriers and offer a more integrated service to the frail elderly, so as to avoid some of the problems mentioned by the hon. Lady.

Kate Hoey: Surely the Secretary of State understands—even if Sir Bruce Keogh does not seem to do so—the huge effect that downgrading the maternity unit at Lewisham will have on King’s college and St Thomas’ hospitals. They are full to the seams and will not be able to cater easily for increased numbers of women. What exactly is the Secretary of State offering hospitals such as mine in terms of finance? Will he lay out clearly that this kind of merger of King’s college hospital, Guy’s and St Thomas’ and the mental health trust is not the way forward when it has been brought in from the top by those same experts who get it wrong so often, and when local people have had absolutely no involvement? In view of the disruption taking place, will he say that it is absolute nonsense for millions of pounds to be spent on consultants and business plans to bring together a huge organisation that will not be in the interests of local people?

Jeremy Hunt: On the merger, may I gently point out that I want to follow her advice if she is against people deciding things from the top down. It is for local trusts to
	negotiate such things, and they must do so on the basis of what is in the clinical interest of the population they serve. I will not be a Secretary of State who steps in and stops those things happening, unless they amount to a reconfiguration in which case procedures are in place that require proper democratic support for any changes.
	On the changes to maternity provision in Lewisham, we have allocated £36 million to expanding the capacity at those other hospitals that will take on more complex and high-risk births as a result of the proposals, and we will work closely with those trusts to ensure that that capacity is in place. I agree with the hon. Lady that it is extremely important for such work to be done in a meticulous way so that we get the better clinical outcomes we want as a result of what I am announcing today.

Kevin Barron: I sat on the Health and Social Care Bill Committee. The principle in that Bill, which became an Act last year, was that clinicians will be in charge. The lead clinical commissioner has said that this downgrading would pose a huge risk to health outcomes in Lewisham. How does that square with the provisions of that Act passed in this House last year?

Jeremy Hunt: Clinicians and commissioners have been closely involved in these proposals which, as the right hon. Gentleman will know from reading my statement, affect the broader south-east London area covering six clinical commissioning groups. Five of those groups support the proposals. One does not, but it supports the principles behind them, which is that more complex procedures must be carried out on fewer sites. We have had the benefit of the clinical input of senior people such as Sir Bruce Keogh, and many of the royal colleges have been involved in the external clinical advisory group, which had significant input on the proposals. One question I asked Sir Bruce was whether there had been sufficient clinical input, and his conclusion was that yes, there had been.

Jim Dowd: All paid for.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Points of Order

John Hemming: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Departments of State have varied records as to the quality and timeliness of answering questions. The Department of Health is very good, but the Department for Education has been particularly bad—so bad, in fact, that an evidence session with a Minister of State in December at the Procedure Committee, and an evidence session with the Secretary of State last week, considered why that Department was so woefully bad. Last week at the Procedure Committee there was a list of 36 questions that had been asked in 2012 to which answers had not yet been given. As of yesterday, 31 of those questions remain unanswered. Would it be in order for me to apply for an urgent question to ask the Secretary of State for an explanation of the departmental failure if urgent progress is not made?

Mr Speaker: The matter that the hon. Gentleman raises is, I believe, the subject of a current investigation by the Procedure Committee, of which he is himself a distinguished member. I think the House should await the outcome of the Committee’s deliberations before considering the matter on the Floor. The hon. Gentleman has made his point and it will have been heard in the appropriate quarters.

Angela Smith: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 12 December, I wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), asking him to desist from accepting an invitation to open a relocated business premises in my constituency on 1 February, which is of course tomorrow. Only today I received a response in which the right hon. Gentleman asserts that he will be attending the event in his capacity as a local MP, having been invited by the company due to a personal connection. May I ask for your guidance, Mr Speaker, on what appears to me an arrogant and blatant disregard of the protocol governing relationships between MPs and their constituencies?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. The short answer is that what is required in these circumstances is notification. It is not the case that under our procedures a Member is prohibited from visiting and making a public appearance in another hon. Member’s constituency. I do not seek in any sense to duck the issue, but ultimately it is not one for the Chair. It is a matter for resolution, if possible, but certainly for discussion between neighbouring Members. It is clear that the hon. Lady is extremely dissatisfied, and she may wish to raise the matter further with the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg). I must say, however, that on the specific matter of order, there has been no breach thereof. I think we will have to leave it there for today.

Canterbury City Council Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

Lindsay Hoyle: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that we are debating Lords amendments to four different private Bills simultaneously today. This is because the four Bills are close to identical, and so are the amendments made in another place.
	While we will debate the amendments together, the Questions to dispose of the Lord amendments will be put on each Bill in turn. That means that all Questions on the Canterbury City Council Bill will be disposed of before I put any Questions on the Leeds City Council Bill. I will then put the Questions necessary to dispose of all the Lords amendments to the Leeds City Council Bill before I proceed to the Questions relating to the Nottingham City Council Bill, and so forth.
	On the amendment paper, the Lords amendments are printed for each Bill sequentially, starting with all the Lords amendments to the Canterbury City Council Bill. Each Lords amendment has a letter against its number—C for Canterbury, L for Leeds—and guess what?—N for Nottingham and R for Reading.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Interpretation

Stuart Andrew: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment C3.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to take the following:
	Lords amendments C4, C5, C10 to C14, C18, C20 to C26, C27 and amendments (a) to (g) thereto, C29 and C30 to the Canterbury City Council Bill.
	Lords amendments L1, L2 and L6 to L18, and L19 and amendments (a) to (f) thereto to the Leeds City Council Bill.
	Lords amendments N1, N2 and N7 to N19, and N20 and amendments (a) to (f) thereto to the Nottingham City Council Bill.
	Lords amendments R1 to R3 and R9 to R21, and R22 and amendments (a) to (g) thereto, and amendment R23 to the Reading Borough City Council.

Stuart Andrew: May I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier)? He has spent considerable time on the Bill and I thank him. His duties on the Select Committee on Justice will prevent him from being in the Chamber for the duration of the debate. My only hope is that he does not regret asking me to help with the Bill today.
	As I have said, considerable time has been spent debating these issues, and it is therefore not my intention to speak for too long. The first group of amendments made in the other place relates to enforcement. When the Bill was introduced to the Lords, the Bill provided that council officers could seize articles, receptacles or equipment when a person was reasonably suspected of committing a street-trading offence or of helping another to commit the offence. The Bill also stated that a court
	before which a person is convicted of a street-trading offence could order the forfeiture of seized items, and that an authorised council officer could serve a fixed penalty notice on a person whom he reasonably believed had committed a street-trading offence, or an offence of aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of such offences.
	The Lords Committee was concerned that some of those enforcement powers were disproportionate, and that they could be used to prevent pedlars from lawfully carrying out their business. It therefore removed the power of seizure, but left the power to issue fixed penalty notices. It inserted a provision requiring councils to train all officials charged with exercising the remaining powers, and to publicise on their websites information about street trading and street trading enforcement in their areas.
	I am aware that amendments to Lords amendments have been tabled. The amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) are, as I understand it, concerned with the publicity provisions. They would specifically require the details to include information on the streets contained in the designated areas within which special provision on pedlars will apply. The amendments would mean that the publicity must describe the boundaries of designated areas and require the councils to display the information prominently in a designated area.
	The councils believe that the amendments are unnecessary. The information that they publish will be comprehensive and it would be neither practicable nor desirable to display all the information in a designated area. These days, most people have access to the internet, where all the information would be found. The prudent street trader would check the rules in advance of trading.
	There are also concerns about the proliferation of signs and unnecessary street clutter. I hope the House supports the amendments I have tabled.

Julian Brazier: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) for taking this on. I will not be able to be in the Chamber for most of the debate because of the duties he mentioned. The matter has been running for some years and has cost Canterbury city council a great deal of money—no doubt, it has cost the other councils a great deal of money too. We made concessions on the original Bill in the Commons and further concessions were made in the Lords. I very much hope we can get this business finished this afternoon.

Matthew Hancock: Given the first two speeches, it might be advantageous for the House if I set out the Government’s position. We do not normally seek to intervene on private business, but we have in this case—not on the substance, but to ensure that it is consistent with the EU services directive. We are content for the business to go forward. As it happens, I am a great personal fan of all four cities concerned not least because one is the city of my forefathers—that is my personal position. The Government’s position is that we are content for the Bill to go forward.

Christopher Chope: I have listened with interest to the three contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), with typical understatement, said that their lordships had some concerns about the Bill—the disproportionate powers, the power of seizure and so on. We will discuss the pedlars aspect of the Bill under the second group of Lords amendments, but essentially, their lordships have filleted the Bill. The Bill originally extended to some 18 clauses, but it now has only 13. The clauses that have been taken out are the subject of the Lords amendments we are discussing under this group—clause 6, on seizure; clause 7, on the seizure of perishable items; clause 8, on the return and disposal of seized items; clause 9, on the forfeiture of seized items; and clause 10, on compensation when seizure is unlawful.
	You, Mr Deputy Speaker, may recall that the concerns expressed by their lordships were also expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and I, and by other hon. Members, during the passage of the Canterbury City Council Bill and the three other Bills we are considering.
	Let us briefly remind ourselves of the history. The Canterbury City Council Bill was presented to Parliament as a private Bill on 27 November 2007. I do not know whether the fact that we are still considering it is some sort of record. The Bill was read the First time on 22 January 2008. Second Reading began on 12 June 2008 and continued on 29 October 2008. The Canterbury City Council Bill was completed, but the need to keep the four Bills together meant there was a third day on Second Reading on 3 June 2009. Significantly—this is one of the important messages that should go out from this exercise—because there were no Commons petitions against the Bills, the matter went to a Committee on Unopposed Bills, which rubber-stamped the provisions on 8 July 2009. The fact that the Bill came straight back from a Committee on Unopposed Bills meant we were unable to debate the Bill on Report. We were therefore able to express our concerns further only on Third Reading on 14 January 2010, just over three years ago.
	Fortunately, Members of the other place took the Bills seriously—we owe them a great debt of gratitude. My noble Friend Lord Lucas, who took an interest in earlier Bills, did not serve in Committee in the other place, but he has been instrumental in working closely with pedlars and their representatives to ensure that the importance of the Bill was raised in the other place. As a result of that and Lords petitions against the Canterbury City Council Bill and the other Bills, the House of Lords Opposed Bill Committee sat for three days in November 2011. The other place debated the Bill in Committee on 24 November 2011, which was followed by a debate on Third Reading on 3 December 2012.
	I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to the Front Bench. I was hoping that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who was in his place earlier in the Bill’s passage, would continue his interest in today’s subject matter, but unfortunately he is unable to do so. What the Minister failed to tell us about in his short contribution was that between the Committee stage on 24 November 2011 and Third Reading on 3 December 2012 in the other place, the Government issued yet another consultation paper on the subject of pedlars. I will refer in more detail to some aspects of that consultation paper in relation to the
	second group of amendments to which I think it has a greater relevance, but let us remind ourselves that the effect of the Government’s proposals is to abolish all existing legislation relating to pedlars and to replace it. They argue that the existing legislation is at odds with the European Union services directive. When I raised this matter in the House in 2010, people thought it was a device to try to prolong proceedings. However, it is apparent that this was an important issue of substance and, although it seems to have taken a long time, the Government have realised that the EU services directive did and does impinge on the Bills.
	One consequence of what the Minister said—if the Government are happy for the Bills, as amended by their lordships, to go on to the statute book—is that we will have several different regimes for dealing with the regulation of pedlars operating in this country: the regimes of councils that got their Bills through before now and that tend to have a tighter regulation than this one; the Bills before us today; and all councils continuing to operate under the existing law relating to pedlars. The Government have said that they do not think that that is satisfactory. I am therefore surprised that they seem to be relaxed about allowing to go on to the statute book four new local Bills that will be inconsistent with the Government’s intentions as set out in the consultation paper. My hon. Friend the Minister could argue that the closing date for contributions to the consultation paper is not until 15 February 2013, and that the Government will then listen to the representations received. In the light of that, I am surprised that the Government are not saying, “Hold on a moment, let us see whether what is proposed by their lordships as a result of these amendments is consistent with what we have in mind.”
	In the Third Reading debate on the Canterbury City Council Bill in the other place—

Philip Davies: Before my hon. Friend moves on, given that a number of the amendments relate to the amount of training that would need to be given to people by local authorities, would it not be a spectacular waste of money for local authorities to spend an awful lot of money on training people, only for a Government Bill to make all that training completely redundant?

Christopher Chope: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend on that point. He refers to the money that has been wasted. Councils and council tax payers will need to ask questions about how they got themselves into this mess. They have each probably spent hundreds of thousands of pounds to try to promote legislation that was ill-conceived from the outset and was certainly ill-conceived following the implementation and introduction of the EU services directive. It has also been much criticised at all stages in this House and in the other place.
	It would be wrong not to pay tribute to the work that was done in the other place to examine the Bills in detail. The Committee was set up and chaired with enormous aplomb by Baroness Knight of Collingtree, whom we all remember as a formidable Member of this House. Its members included Lord Blair of Boughton,
	Viscount Eccles, Lord Glasman and Lord Strasburger, who took a detailed interest. If any hon. Member wishes to have a handy summary of its conclusions, they are set out in the House of Lords Third Reading debate on 3 December in
	Hansard
	. I will not quote extensively from it, but in the context of this group of Lords amendments let me say that Lord Bilston, who introduced Third Reading in the other place, said on the issue of enforcement:
	“All four Bills would have allowed the councils to seize items from unlawful street traders. The committee thought that this was a step too far and removed the seizure provisions. The councils were naturally disappointed, but were pleased that the committee was content leave in the fixed-penalty provisions.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 444.]

Philip Davies: Given the extent to which the Lords amendments fillet the Bill, as my hon. Friend described, where do they leave its substance? He will recall that when we were debating these matters in the previous Parliament, we were told that all the clauses relating to seizure were essential for local authorities, and that without them the Bill would be pointless and worthless. Does my hon. Friend have any comment on where it would leave the Bill if we were to accept the Lords amendments?

Christopher Chope: It would leave the Bill exactly as it is now, but with those aspects removed. The point needs to be made—my hon. Friend is probably making it—that there are going to be a lot of words to be eaten as a result of this. Some of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members were saying how essential these powers were, and that the Bill would be wholly unworkable without them. Now that these powers have been removed and they are carrying on quite contentedly. Either their bluff has been called, or they do not want to face up to the new reality. I cannot ascribe motives to my hon. Friends or to Opposition Members; all I can say is that the councils will need to think carefully about whether they took the right line in promoting the Bills. Apart from anything else, Baroness Knight said that
	“the four Bills presented would undoubtedly have given councils a disproportionate power in relation to suspected street trading offences.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 446.]
	That is why they reduced those powers significantly and, in relation to the issuing of fixed penalty notices, introduced a requirement that councils trained all officials. Viscount Eccles was even more robust, saying:
	“I want to talk briefly about fixed penalties. I think that in principle fixed penalties are undesirable. They may be necessary but, when they are, they are a necessary evil. The problem is that many people acquire the power to impose fixed penalties. We try to offset that by training and I hope that that works, but”—
	it had to be recognised that—
	“all power corrupts.”
	He could see the dangers in the Bill as originally drafted, and that there is still potential danger in the Bill as amended by their lordships in relation to training. Then the noble Lord Strasburger explained:
	“We added a requirement for better training of council officials on trading laws and”—
	my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey did not make this point—
	“constrained the value of fixed penalties.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 452.]
	That differentiated, for example, between the fixed penalties imposed for failing to give a name and address from those imposed for giving a false name and address. That was a sensible amendment from their lordships’ House.
	The amendments on enforcement are steps in the right direction, but I have tabled amendments to amendment C27 on information and training, which inserts a new clause after clause 17, but leaves rather a lot of loopholes. For instance, amendment (a) would leave out “on its internet website”, so that subsection (1) would read:
	“The council shall publish information about—“
	Why tell a council that it only needs to publish such information on its internet website?
	It might have been a slip of the tongue, but my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey said that all street traders could access the internet and find out what was going on, but the Bill is primarily concerned with pedlars, and pedlars and street traders are very different animals. Pedlars are on their own and normally travelling from town to town and from street to street. It is important, therefore, that a pedlar registered with the police in, say, Liverpool, when visiting Canterbury can find out what the rules are. A pedlar who has travelled to Canterbury from, say, Gravesend, might not have had access to the internet—perhaps because the local library was shut over the weekend, or whatever.

Philip Davies: I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend’s point, but were we to remove “on its internet website”, how does he imagine that the information either would or should be published?

Christopher Chope: I imagine it would be published in a form that people could read, without having to access the internet—in other words, in a document or notice that could be obtained from local council offices or sent in advance.

Philip Davies: I am presuming that, in essence, my hon. Friend’s amendment would actually help local authorities. Under their lordships’ amendment, the information would have to be published on the council’s internet website, whereas if his amendment was accepted, presumably the council could publish it in any form it liked. It could still be on the website, but the council would have a choice.

Christopher Chope: I accept that. If my hon. Friend is saying that my amendment is ill-conceived because it would not achieve the objective of enabling pedlars in a city such as Canterbury to find out what was happening, I am beginning to understand his point. That, however, is why I tabled amendment (e), stating that the information
	“shall also be displayed prominently in any designated area”.
	That would mean that when a pedlar arrived in a street on which he was not allowed to operate as a pedlar unimpeded, there would be notices in the street telling him so.

Philip Davies: I certainly agree with that, but I was merely making the point that my hon. Friend’s initial amendment seemed to help the local authority by being less prescriptive and bureaucratic, and that perhaps it was an indication that he was going soft in his old age.

Christopher Chope: I take those sorts of allegations very seriously, particularly if one is talking about going soft in the head. I think my hon. Friend was referring to the Local Government Association. It is worth pointing out, therefore, the disparaging remarks made in the other place about how the LGA responded to the Government’s consultation in November. The noble Lord Lucas said:
	“It would have been nice, too, to be able to praise the Local Government Association, but its reaction to the consultation was immediate, negative and silly.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 450.]
	Even if I am going soft on the LGA, my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the noble Lord Lucas is not pulling his punches.
	Amendment (b), which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), would insert a new paragraph after paragraph (a). The clause would then read:
	“The council shall publish on its internet website information about the provision of this Act and of the 1982 Act as amended by this Act; and any street comprised in any area designated in section 5.”
	If particular streets are to be brought within the ambit of streets on which pedlars cannot carry on their business normally but have to comply with requirements set out in these Bills, it is essential that there be no doubt about the ambit of those streets and that pedlars be given proper notice of where they may operate. That is why I tabled amendment (b)—so that the council has to publish information about any street comprised in a designated area.
	Amendment (c), which would insert a new paragraph after subsection (1)(b), deals with information about
	“the boundaries of areas designated under section 5.”
	It would require that the information provided cover not only the streets but the boundaries of those areas. At the moment, the Bill enables the council to designate an area either on health and safety grounds or because the highway might be obstructed. The Bill gives it those powers but without the requirement to specify exactly how they are being applied.

Philip Davies: I totally support my hon. Friend on these amendments. Does he agree that it is in the local authority’s interest to make this information clear, because if it wants to deal with an issue in a particular part of its city or district, it would be helpful for that information to be made clear? Given that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey seemed to dismiss his amendments very quickly, are we not in danger of repeating the scenario where amendments are discarded but later shown to have been perfectly sensible?

Christopher Chope: It is a significant danger, and that is the problem. Whenever anyone suggests we should deal with something on the nod, it means that the full implications of the proposal are not examined, but that is the whole purpose of scrutiny in this place. That is why I hope that in responding to this debate my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey will address the substance of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and I are making.

Philip Davies: Has my hon. Friend had any discussions with the local authorities concerned to understand better why they seem to object to his sensible amendments?

Christopher Chope: In all honesty, I had not expected that there would be objections, save perhaps on the basis of the “not invented here” formula, because people are not always generous in accepting other people’s ideas and suggestions.
	However, I would like to put on record the fact that in considering these four Bills, I had a constructive meeting with a representative from Leeds city council, from which came the idea that the way forward would be to impose constraints on the size of the trolleys that pedlars can use in Leeds city centre. That theme has now been picked up in the other Bills and the Lords amendments, as well as in the suggestions in the Government’s consultation paper on where we go from here. That was a good example of constructive working between a Member of this House and an official from one of the councils seeking to promote this legislation. My hon. Friend might remember that when the question arose of whether any of the other councils would be prepared to accept similar constraints or amendments, they resolutely refused to engage. In a sense, they have now been forced to do so as a result of what happened in the other place, but there is always a lot more scope for those promoting these Bills and the officials behind them to speak with colleagues directly about issues such as the one my hon. Friend identifies.
	Let me turn to my amendments to subsection (2) of the proposed new clause to be inserted after clause 17 by Lords amendment C27. Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause currently reads:
	“The information published shall, in particular, be such as the council reasonably considers is sufficient to enable those wishing to trade in the city to understand the circumstances in which they may lawfully do so.”
	That would be much stronger if, instead of saying that the information shall be such as “the council reasonably considers”, it said that the information shall, in particular, be “such as is sufficient”. The important thing is that the information should be sufficient to enable those wishing to trade in the city to understand the circumstances. Whether the council thinks that information is sufficient is of subsidiary importance.

Philip Davies: Is my hon. Friend contending that if the council reasonably considered that it did not need to provide any information at all, that would be fine under the current wording? He is much more skilled in the law than I am. What constraints would there be on the local authority before a court if the existing wording was not amended as he seeks?

Christopher Chope: It would be open to a council to provide minimal information, on the basis that the council reasonably considered it to be sufficient. Somebody who felt that it was insufficient—a pedlar who was potentially suffering a fixed penalty—would not be able to argue that the information was not sufficient to enable him to understand the circumstances under which he could trade, because all the council had to do was provide information that the council itself reasonably considered sufficient. The council would therefore be introducing a subjective test, thereby removing the effectiveness of what, on the face of it, seems perfectly sensible—that the information provided should be sufficient. The notion that the information is sufficient if the council considers it to be sufficient effectively negates what would otherwise be a worthwhile amendment.

Philip Davies: I would like to press my hon. Friend on the words “the council reasonably considers”. Would what the council reasonably considered sufficient be materially different from what anybody else reasonably considered to be sufficient?

Christopher Chope: It may well be, and that is my concern. Let us look at what has happened in the past. Their lordships found a lot of evidence that councils were making assertions about the conduct of pedlars that they could not back up with evidence before their lordships’ Committee, so a council might consider something to be sufficient when it is not sufficient, because of that council or its officers having a particular prejudice or taking a cavalier approach.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Bill would surely be clearer if it did not allow the council discretion. If the council were to err in its use of discretion, that could lead to judicial reviews and all sorts of expenses to the council, so the promoters of these Bills would benefit by accepting his amendments.

Christopher Chope: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that succinct and, I hope, persuasive—indeed, conclusive—argument in support of my amendments. I hope that our hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey has noted it—although sadly I do not see any messages being passed between him and the people sitting in the officials’ Box on behalf of the promoters of the Bills.
	Let me turn to my amendment (e), which would add the following words at the end of subsection (2) of the proposed new clause inserted by Lords amendment C27:
	“and shall also be displayed prominently in any designated area.”
	It is obviously useful for a motorist visiting a town who is thinking of parking somewhere to know where the parking restrictions apply, and the way to find out is by looking at a notice close to where they intend to park. Similarly, it is quite useful for pedlars intending to peddle their goods in a city or town centre to be able to see on a notice whether a different regime operates there compared with the national regime. That is fundamental to ensuring fair play and justice for visitors to a designated area who are not quite sure whether it is indeed a designated area, and so on. What harm would there be in requiring signs on the circumference of a designated area to make it absolutely clear to any passer-by?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has given any consideration to the design of such signs and how it might be made clear to people that they are in a peddling or non-peddling zone.

Christopher Chope: It would be useful if there were distinct signs. Indeed, an enterprising local authority might want to invite local schools to enter a competition to see who could produce the best design for such a sign. I do not think there should necessarily be uniform signs across the country, because that sounds rather bureaucratic and top-down. The most important thing is that the signs should be prominent and clear and not contain a lot of detail—unlike the conditions on the back of one’s new credit card, for example. There need to be relatively few words, prominently displayed.

Peter Bone: I urge my hon. Friend not to do down the communist route of centrally dictating things, because these are individual Bills. It would not be beyond the wit of man to have little signs, as we do with conservation areas, for instance. That would be useful. Will the promoters of the Bill will accept these amendments?

Christopher Chope: I thank my hon. Friend for supporting these amendments. I have yet to hear officially, although in introducing the debate on their Lordships’ amendments and mine at the beginning of the debate—I know my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough was not in his place at that time—our hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey implied en passant that he did not want to accept any of these amendments. Perhaps in the light of the ensuing debate, he will change his mind.

Stuart Andrew: indicated dissent.

Christopher Chope: Colleagues elected in 2010 have discovered that when they are asked by promoters to promote a Bill in this House, it does not mean that they lose all their discretion over it. It is ultimately up to them as Members of Parliament to decide what to accept and what not to accept, and they do not need to be beholden to the officials.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as I was getting very worried about this constitutional principle. It is surely up to this House and not up to individual promoters or local councils, to decide what passes into law.

Christopher Chope: Absolutely, and I am sorry if I did not make that clear. There was an occasion—you may remember it, Mr Deputy Speaker—on a different private Bill earlier in this Parliament when one of my hon. Friends felt a certain reluctance to do anything other than what he had been told to do by the promoters. I explained to him that he would be doing the promoters, himself and the House a good service if he showed some flexibility. In fairness to him, he did show such flexibility. That is a good precedent, and I draw it to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey in case he was not there at the time.

Philip Davies: Going back to the substantial issue of notices, as my hon. Friend knows, I am with him on virtually all of this and have been for a number of years. However, we are in danger of parting company, I fear, on the issue of the notices being different in every local authority. Surely the whole point of the objection is that people going from one place to another cannot be expected to know the exact regime in a particular place. Surely therefore it would be helpful if the same notice were in place in each local authority. Just as “no parking” notices are the same across the country, should not the same thing apply to pedlars’ notices?

Christopher Chope: Fortunately, if we disagree on this issue, it need not concern us because the amendment does not spell that out. It was only in response to an intervention from our hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) that I ventured to suggest that if any notices were produced, they need not be uniform across the country. That, of course, would be
	left to the discretion of the local authority, so I think my hon. Friend and I can probably live together on that particular interpretation.

Philip Davies: That is next Tuesday’s business.

Christopher Chope: Sorry, I should not anticipate next Tuesday’s debate. I can see that my hon. Friend is going to be on really good form next week.
	Amendment (f) to subsection (1) of the inserted new clause on training deals with the same theme of trying to remove the subjective test for the council so that there is some objectivity about it. Instead of saying:
	“The council shall not authorise an officer to act for the purposes of this Act unless they are satisfied that the officer has received adequate training”,
	subsection (1) of the inserted new clause on training would say:
	“The council shall not authorise an officer to act for the purposes of this Act unless the officer has received adequate training”.
	It would no longer be an issue of whether or not the council was satisfied, but a more objective test of whether the officer had received adequate training. Obviously, if the council is doing the training and it is by any objective test inadequate, that would not be a problem under the current wording. Only when the council has to satisfy an objective test in relation to training will we ensure that the right quality of training, to which our noble Friends in the other place referred, will be implemented. My amendment would strengthen this part of clause 17.

Philip Davies: I am sympathetic to what my hon. Friend says, as he is making a good point. Does he know how this compares with what is required for other officers employed by local authorities—whether it be parking attendants or even perhaps the police force? Are my hon. Friend’s proposals the norm or is what is in the Bill the norm in that respect?

Christopher Chope: In all honesty, I do not have the comparable statutory provisions before me to be able to answer my hon. Friend’s point. I am sure, however, that with the resources that have gone into the budgets of the promoters’ advisers, that sort of information should be available. Perhaps we will hear in due course from our hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey and find out whether similar provisions apply anywhere else.
	This issue should not be treated lightly. Their Lordships were quite concerned that, if we are going to allow people who are not constables or police community support officers to intervene in these areas, and we are going to allow “authorised persons” to intervene, it is essential that those authorised people are properly trained.

Philip Davies: In many respects, this amendment is more important than my hon. Friend’s previous amendment. The provisions on information at least ask the council “reasonably” to consider whether they are sufficient, whereas without my hon. Friend’s amendment, the wording on the training provisions is that the council needs only to be “satisfied”—not that it “has reason” to be satisfied or is “reasonably” satisfied. It is literally as blanket as that. Surely my hon. Friend would agree that his amendment on the training aspect is even more important than the one on information.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. If we cannot vote on all my amendments and have to select one—

Philip Davies: A shame.

Christopher Chope: Yes, it would be a shame if we could not vote on all of them—perhaps some of them will be accepted. I must not be downhearted at this stage, as they might all be accepted. However, in the event that this one is not accepted, I can understand my hon. Friend’s point that it would be a useful amendment on which to test the opinion of the House. The essence of my amendment (f) is that it is designed to prevent the officers of the local authority from being judges in their own courts. That is a pretty fundamental principle, and I would have thought that all Members would like to sign up to it and apply it in practice.

David Nuttall: I am sorry that I was not in my place to hear the beginning of my hon. Friend’s exposition of his various amendments. On this particular amendment and even allowing for it, it will still be up to the council to determine what is and what is not “adequate”. Does my hon. Friend think that it is right for the council to decide rather than some independent body?

Christopher Chope: I would have hoped that we could trust councils to provide adequate training. The purpose of my amendment is to try to ensure that that happens. If the training is not adequate, it will be open to somebody to make a complaint to the council or the councillors; ultimately, it could be used as a defence to a fixed penalty notice or something like that—although I would not want to speculate on that. The test is that the officers must be properly trained: that is what the provisions would require—rather than that the council thought the training was adequate. I hope it would not be necessary to set up a new bureaucracy—an appeals panel or something like that—to deal with the situation, as we are already overburdened with bureaucracy and officialdom in this country, and we do not want even more of it.
	My amendment (g) to Lords amendment C27 proposes the deletion of subsection (2), which makes training provided by the council mandatory. It states:
	“The council shall make the training referred to in subsection (1) available also to constables and community support officers empowered by section 5(1) to give a fixed penalty notice.”
	That is redundant, because constables and community support officers receive training that enables them to perform this function outside the ambit of any particular local Act relating to pedlars, and it is therefore unnecessary to require the council to become involved in training them. Obviously, if the chief constable asks the local council whether it will provide training for constables and community support officers, the council will probably be happy to oblige and to explain the procedure.

Peter Bone: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way—he is being exceptionally generous—but did he mean to refer to the police and crime commissioner just now, rather than the chief constable?

Christopher Chope: I think that it would be the chief constable in this instance. My understanding is that police and crime commissioners are there to decide whether to hire and fire, and to set out the budget for the police authorities,
	whereas operational issues are dealt with by the chief constables. I would regard the question of whether constables or community support officers on the beat are capable or knowledgeable enough to introduce or apply a fixed penalty notice regime as an operational issue.

Peter Bone: I would understand my hon. Friend’s logic if this were national legislation, but given that it is local legislation, by virtue of being a private Bill, surely it should be up to the police and crime commissioner to decide whether he wants to get involved with this nonsense at all.

Christopher Chope: I take my hon. Friend’s point, but I trust that police and crime commissioners have bigger fish to fry.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey will support my amendments. As was made clear earlier, they also apply to the other Bills with which we are dealing today. We are not picking on Canterbury in particular, but it is the first Bill on the Order Paper.

Philip Davies: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) not just for his speech, although it was of the customary calibre, but for his dedication in ensuring that, if the Bill ever leaves this place, it will leave in a much better state than the state in which it arrived. Without my hon. Friend’s personal dedication to this issue, and his determination that we should do what we ought to do in this place—that is, defend people’s freedoms and defend enterprise—the Bill would have passed through Parliament in a much less satisfactory manner.
	Like my hon. Friend, I am grateful for the work that was done by their lordships. I do not know whether my hon. Friend felt the same, but I feared that the Bill would go through on the nod in the House of Lords. Their lordships should be commended for going through it in great detail and considering the arguments properly, and, consequently, tabling some amendments with which I think we can be particularly pleased.
	I agree with what my hon. Friend said about many of the amendments. He focused on the subject of seizures, and on the Lords amendments that proposed the omission of various clauses relating to it. He may recall that the issue caused great controversy when it was debated for the first time in this place. It struck me as unacceptable that local authorities should employ authorised officers to go around seizing people’s goods willy-nilly. As my hon. Friend will recall, we argued the case vehemently for many months. We were told that the clauses were essential to the Bill, and that without them it would be unworkable and meaningless. We were also told that the proposals in the amendments would be unenforceable, and that they were in effect wrecking amendments: that, if I remember rightly, is what my hon. Friend was accused of when he tried to persuade the promoters that what they were saying was over the top.
	I should be interested to know why the promoters thought that removing those clauses then would wreck the Bill, whereas removing them today apparently does not wreck it all. It seems that it will still be fit to proceed into law. It is difficult for us to consider the merits of the
	amendments until we are given some satisfactory answers to the question of how important the clauses are to the Bill as a whole.
	I have the impression that we have reached a stage at which the promoters are determined to produce an Act of Parliament, irrespective of what is in it and whether anything that is in it will ever be applied. This seems to have become a war of attrition, a battle of wills. The promoters seem merely to want an Act of Parliament to hang their hat on. I certainly support the removal of all these clauses—page after page of them—and I think we should be grateful for the fact that the promoters may have come round to my hon. Friend’s way of thinking.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend has made a good point. Is there not a chance that because so much council tax payers’ money has been wasted on Bills that were not thought through thoroughly to start with, the promoters are determined to drive through a Bill to justify that waste?

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is right. A similar attitude was taken by the previous Government. The idea is to waste a lot of money on something that is clearly not working, and then, instead of drawing stumps and cutting your losses, to keep spending more and more, just so that there is something to show for all the money spent. All that happens, though, is that even more money is wasted.

Peter Bone: Is that not what the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) said in his autobiography about the Dome? The last Labour Government were affected by exactly the same syndrome.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is far better read than I am. The right hon. Gentleman’s book is gathering dust on my shelf, and I have not got round to reading it. However, I will look out for that section when I do get round to it. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch had to say about seizures, and our comments about seized items are on the record from the previous debates. I stand by what I said then and I am sure that he also stands by what he said, and I am delighted that their lordships have agreed.

Christopher Chope: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that other promoters preparing private Bills take into account the verdict of their lordships on these seizure powers? We have seen a lot of attempts to introduce or smuggle equivalent powers in other private Bills.

Philip Davies: I absolutely agree. I hope that, in many respects, what their lordships have done will set a precedent and that we will not have to worry so much about some of the worst consequences of such legislation.
	A notable omission from my hon. Friend’s speech was the issue of touting, although I appreciate that he was trying to be as brief as possible. If he did mention that and I missed it, I apologise to him. One amendment before us today deals with touting. He did not mention it—[Interruption.] I think it comes later on in our
	proceedings. It is in the third group, so I will save up my expertise on touting until that time; I apologise for mentioning it now.
	The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch were focused mainly on training. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) is my parliamentary neighbour and an excellent Member of Parliament. The only bad thing about having him as my neighbour is that he puts me to shame. He has already successfully steered a private Member’s Bill through Parliament in his short time in the House. He did so with an awful lot of panache and charm, and by being practical and reasonable about what it was sensible to do in order to get that legislation through. I very much hope he will adopt the same strategy now, because he saw how well it worked with his Bill; I hope he will use that experience when considering this legislation, too.
	Let us consider the debate we have had so far from a layman’s perspective—from the point of view of people who have no vested interest in the legislation and who have not been going through battles which started six years ago, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said. People who do not have that baggage and who listened to the argument that my hon. Friend made for his amendments to Lords amendment C27 could not fail to have been persuaded by his case. We started from the position that these Bills were designed to give local authorities far too much power—that was the whole point for us when we started out. As a result of my hon. Friend’s work and what happened in their lordships’ House, gradually, bit by bit, the excessive powers have been whittled down. We hope to end up with legislation that, although perhaps not ideal—it may not be something we particularly agree with—will certainly be an awful lot better than it was when we started out. We have an opportunity to carry on the theme that my hon. Friend started, and that their lordships continued, by removing some of the remaining parts that put far too much power in the hands of local authorities and give far too little protection, literally, to the man on the street.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Is it not very reassuring that the upper House has carried out its traditional role of defending the liberty of the subject from the seizure of goods? Such seizure has been unknown and unwelcome in this country since Magna Carta.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. It is why some of us felt so strongly about these Bills and, in particular, about the issues relating to seizure. It is to be commended that their lordships have done what they have historically done—defend people’s freedoms—but we should not have to rely on their lordships for that; we should be doing that in this place, too. We have a great opportunity to demonstrate how important that is to us through my hon. Friend’s amendments.
	The promoters of the Canterbury City Council Bill chose well when they selected my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey as the person to steer it through the House. I am sure that it would be in everybody’s interests if the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch were accepted. I am a signatory to them, so I would say that, but their genesis lies with my hon. Friend and I do not want to take the credit away from him.
	I am not so bothered about amendment (a) to Lords amendment C27. Lords amendment C27 seeks to provide that:
	“The council shall publish on its internet website information”.
	My hon. Friend wishes to remove the words “on its internet website” from that provision. I am not so bothered about that one, not because I disagree with it, but because I am not sure it would achieve what he intends. It would not preclude the council from simply putting the information on its website; the council would still be able to do exactly the same thing, so we would be no further forward. I think my hon. Friend intended that the council should not simply be allowed to leave it at that and that other forms of communications should be used, particularly for people who do not have access to the internet and the relevant website. I agree with his approach, but the amendment would not achieve its purpose and we could end up with a bizarre situation where the unintended consequence was that the local authority published even less information than was available for pedlars. Amendment (a) certainly does not require the local authority to publish more information, so I think we can leave it to one side—I hope my hon. Friend will agree.
	There is far more merit in my hon. Friend’s other amendments to Lords amendment C27, and I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey will give them serious thought. None of us wishes unnecessarily to delay further the proceedings on this legislation, and I am sure that the Bill’s promoters do not wish it to be delayed further, so my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey has a great opportunity here. I cannot speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch but I think that if my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey were to give way on these amendments, the progress of this legislation could be much speedier. That would be a small price for the Bill’s promoters to pay, because not only are these amendments designed to make things better for the pedlar, but, as far as I can see, they are better for the local authority.
	Amendments (b) and (c) would mean that the council would make things abundantly clear by publishing details of the streets covered by the legislation. That is not catered for in the Bill at the moment. If that is such a big issue for these local authorities and something that needs all this time and expense to deal with it, surely it is in the best interests of these councils that everybody knows which streets are affected and which are not, and the boundaries of these rules. With the best will in the world, I am sure that even my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey would not suggest—I hope he will not—that council officials will be on every corner of every street waiting for pedlars to appear in order to turn them around at the first opportunity and issue them with a fixed penalty notice. I would like to think that council resources do not stretch that far. On those days when there is no council official waiting to move a pedlar on or to issue them with a fixed penalty notice, surely it is in the interests of the local residents and the local area that people are following the rules because things are clear and that they are not mistakenly in a place where they should not be. Through his amendments my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is striking a blow not only for freedom but for the efficiency of the local authority in carrying out its wishes.

Christopher Chope: Is not one of the problems the fact that local authorities have form on this issue? On Third Reading in the other place, the noble Lord Strasburger said that the Select Committee spent a lot of time trying to find out why the four local authorities wanted the powers to seize and introduce fixed penalties. It was told that pedlars sell substandard goods, but as he said
	“no evidence whatever was offered to prove this allegation”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 451.]

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is right. In many respects, the attitude that some local authorities have adopted has been sad—

Stuart Andrew: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 155, Noes 7.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Question put accordingly, That this House agrees with Lords amendment C3.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 150, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment C3 agreed to.

Nigel Evans: With the leave of the House, I will put the questions on Lords amendments C4 and C5 to the Canterbury City Council Bill together.

Hon. Members: Object.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with Lords amendment C4.—(Stuart Andrew.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 153, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment C4 agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with Lords amendment C5.—(Stuart Andrew.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 146, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment C5 agreed to.

Stuart Andrew: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment C6.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to take the following:
	Lords amendments C7 and C8, and C9 and amendments (a) to (h) thereto to the Canterbury City Council Bill.
	Lords amendments L3 and L4, and L5 and amendments (a) to (h) thereto to the Leeds City Council Bill.
	Lords amendments N3 to N5, and N6 and amendments (a) to (i) thereto to the Nottingham City Council Bill.
	Lords amendments R4 to R7, and R8 and amendments (a) to (i) thereto to the Reading Borough Council Bill.

Stuart Andrew: My understated manner was mentioned earlier, and I plan to carry on in that manner as I speak to this group of amendments. The pedlar provisions have generated the most interest, from those who petitioned against the Bills in the Lords and from a number of hon. Members in this House. Under the existing licensing legislation, an exception is given to persons who act as a pedlar under the authority of a pedlars certificate granted under the Pedlars Act 1871. The Bills would have limited
	that exemption so that it applied only to pedlars who traded by way of house-to-house visits. All other pedlars would have required a street-trading licence or consent.
	The Lords Committee amended the pedlar provision very much in favour of pedlars. The amendments made will now restrict the exemption from the street-trading regime enjoyed by pedlars to trading by house-to-house visits, trading without any means of support—that is, by traders carrying the items they wish to sell—or trading with a wheeled trolley that does not exceed 0.75 metres in width, 0.5 metres in depth and 1.25 metres in height. The overall size of the display of goods has also been listed in the provision. So the Committee has limited the circumstances in which the restrictions on acting as a pedlar can apply.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend has referred to the Committee stage of the Bills in the other place. He will be aware that since then, on 27 November last year, the Government issued a consultation paper that proposes to repeal the UK-wide Pedlars Act in order to comply with the European services directive. How is that consistent with the rewriting of clause 5, which still purports to amend the Pedlars Act?

Stuart Andrew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Honestly. This process has been going on for a considerable time. In fact, even back in the 1990s, the Home Office was promising to introduce changes, although it never did so. We could go on debating these matters for many years to come. I shall now continue to make my points.
	In addition, the amendments provide that the restrictions on pedlars’ activities should be confined to areas that have been designated by the councils. Each designation must be justified against two criteria. One involves ensuring road safety; the other involves preventing the obstruction of the highway. So, as I mentioned, the regime in the Bills is now far more generous to pedlars than the one originally set out in the Bills. The promoters of course accept the decision of the Lords in this regard.
	I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) has tabled further amendments to these amendments on all four Bills. His amendments are mainly concerned with the designation of areas. They would have the effect of allowing designation of streets rather than areas, and would limit the reasons for designation further than the Lords Committee thought necessary. The promoters do not agree that his amendments are necessary or desirable. They believe it to be entirely appropriate that they should be able to safeguard against obstruction of the highway, as the Lords decided.
	My hon. Friend has also tabled amendments to the Nottingham City Council Bill and the Reading Borough Council Bill. Nottingham and Reading have included extra provision whereby the councils will be able to control the purchase, as well as the sale, of tickets under street-trading legislation. It is perhaps worth noting that the sale of tickets on the street is already subject to street-trading legislation nationally, but ticket touts buy tickets as well as sell them. My hon. Friend’s amendments would not change the position in general for Nottingham and Reading councils. They would still be able to control the buying of tickets. The Lords amendment that he is
	seeking to alter is a consequential one, and the councils do not believe the change to be necessary or desirable. I therefore commend the Lords amendments to the House.

Christopher Chope: As my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) suggested, we have now come to the meat of the Bills—namely, the provisions on pedlars and street trading. Their lordships looked at the issues and decided that clause 4 should be left out. Amendment C8 covers that. Under amendment C9, clause 5 would be left out and the new clause to which my hon. Friend briefly referred would be inserted.
	Confusion has been caused. Since the Lords looked at these issues in November 2011, the Government have come forward with a consultation that effectively says that, because of the impact of the services directive, it is important that the Pedlars Act be repealed nationally. Although I agree that this process has been going on for a while—many years, perhaps—this is the first time we have got what might be described as a European dimension. If the European services directive is going to apply as the Government interpret it, we in this subordinate legislature will not be able to act outside its terms. The Government will not have any option but to proceed along the lines set out in the consultation document.
	The Minister is looking at me in a way that suggests he wishes to intervene and put me right. If that is correct, I will be happy to give way to him.

David Nuttall: Will my hon. Friend give way to me instead?

Christopher Chope: Yes, of course.

David Nuttall: The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills impact assessment states:
	“In any case, our assessment is that the Government has no choice but to abolish the Pedlars Act to comply with the European Services Directive.”

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing my point, and if the Minister wishes to intervene, I would be happy to give way.

Matthew Hancock: Unusually, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) accurately represents the Government position. Some aspects of the Pedlars Act are inconsistent with the European services directive. The consultation that will close on 15 February is known to the four authorities involved; they know that a consultation about a change in the national law is taking place. The proposals up for discussion in the consultation include repealing the Pedlars Act and amending the national street trading regime, and the local authorities would need to amend their legislation to take account of any such changes.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I therefore presume that the Government will vote against Lords amendment C9, which was passed in the other place in 2011, as it has been overtaken by events. It tinkers with amendments to the pedlars legislation, but the Minister says the legislation should be completely repealed.

Philip Davies: On this basis, it is irrelevant whether Members vote for or against that amendment. It does not matter which way the Government vote, therefore, because it will be a complete waste of time whichever way they go.

Christopher Chope: That may be the case in the future, but our national Parliament is still sovereign to the extent that, until we implement the services directive in legislative form, we will have the existing law on the statute book. If we accept Lords amendment C9, we will in effect be re-enacting something the Government tell us is no longer consistent with European law.
	Many Members—and, I suspect, many pedlars, too—would be very pleased if we were to free ourselves from the shackles of Brussels, and we are greatly looking forward to the referendum on the matter. The points being discussed today are part of the campaign, as we are setting out reasons why we would be better off out. Until we rid ourselves of distractions from Brussels, however, we are stuck with having its rule of law apply to our own legislation. I hope that in due course the Minister will explain the Government’s position: do they support or oppose amendment C9?

Philip Davies: Is my hon. Friend in favour of Amendment C9?

Christopher Chope: I have some sympathy with amendment C9 as it contains many of the proposals that we were trying to persuade councils other than Leeds to accept when this Bill was before our House. Leeds conceded that instead of having a regime under which pedlars could only go from door to door, it would be content with one where pedlars could go to pedestrianised high street areas, provided they did not cause an obstruction by having a very elaborate and large apparatus. That is where the concept of having trolleys of limited size came from; it came from Leeds city council, and the idea was discussed with me and some of my hon. Friends. The proposal to give pedlars the freedom to operate on the street with a trolley of sufficient size to enable them to display their goods and provide articles to those who wish to purchase them is a valuable development and makes a lot of common sense. Although the Government consultation specifies a maximum size of trolley rather larger than the one specified in amendment C9, they appear to accept the principle.
	On whether I personally agree with that amendment, I am still very sceptical about whether the Government interpretation of the services directive is correct. When we first raised this issue after the services directive had come into force, the Government took the line that it was of no consequence or interest, so their interpretation has changed significantly in just a couple of years, and they might change it again. Because things are in a state of flux, it would seem to me premature—if one can use that word in respect of a Bill that has been before this House for over six years—to proceed now with amendment C9.
	The Minister has said that the amendment was passed in the Lords and since then there have been developments, but there has been no opportunity for us to accommodate this in our legislative process, because the promoters of the Bill could not anticipate what the Government were going to say in their consultation at the end of November. It is interesting that the consultation paper was issued so late that it would not have been possible, even with their lordships’ procedures, for the promoters to move a Third Reading amendment, even if they had been really on the ball. The promoters have therefore not been able to reflect in the Bills what the Government now say is the position.
	One would have expected the Government to table amendments to the Lords amendments to set out, beyond peradventure, what, if anything, should be in the Bill instead of clause 5, which is being left out. I find the situation rather perplexing. It is important that it is clarified.

David Nuttall: My hon. Friend mentioned that it was suggested in the consultation document that a rather larger trolley be allowed. Is he as surprised as I am that neither the promoters nor the Government have brought forward amendments to bring the new clause in Lords amendment C9 in line with the consultation document?

Christopher Chope: I am surprised about that. I am also a bit disappointed in myself, because I should have tabled such an amendment so that the House could have discussed it. I failed to do that, so the House does not have the opportunity to compare the alternative proposals for the best size of trolley.

Philip Davies: While we are on the sizes of trolleys, my hon. Friend will see that Lords amendment C9 gives specific measurements for trolleys, including a width of 0.88 metres, a depth of 0.83 metres and a height of 1.63 metres. First, can he help those of us who do not understand the meaning of 0.83 metres by telling us what those measurements mean in old money? Secondly, does he have any idea why those measurements are so specific?

Christopher Chope: The short answer is that I am not able to convert metres into feet and inches. I take my hon. Friend’s point that it would be much better if the measurements were expressed in a way that most people can understand. Most people understand feet. I am told that I am approaching 2 metres in height, if that gives my hon. Friend any guidance on the size of the trolleys.

Philip Davies: How wide are you though?

Christopher Chope: The issue of depth is also an important one.

Matthew Hancock: As my hon. Friend knows, the consultation is ongoing, so there is good reason not to bring forward amendments at this stage. To do so might be seen as prejudging the consultation. The appropriate size of trolleys is part of the consultation, so when the consultation closes, we will bring forward conclusions on what is the appropriate size.

Christopher Chope: So does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a good idea for the promoters of the Bills, when the appointed time for discussing them today has expired, to seek the indulgence of the Chairman of Ways and Means to ensure that the Bills are not brought back before the House until after the conclusion of the consultation period and until the Government’s position is clearer? That would enable the necessary consequential amendments to be made to the Bills, rather than their being rushed on to the statute book only for the councils that promote them to come back with fresh amendments in the future. Surely he would think that good advice for the promoters of the Bills.
	Were our consideration delayed beyond the expiry date of the consultation, would the Government come forward with amendments to Lords amendment C9 so that it properly reflected the Government’s view on the impact of the services directive?

Matthew Hancock: As a relatively new Member and Minister, I have much to learn from my hon. Friend about the procedures of this place. His ability to describe as rushed legislation that has so far been six and a bit years in the making, while at the same time speaking at great length to ensure that it is scrutinised properly, is very impressive. What he has said about timing is on the record and these things are always looked at.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generous comments, and for noting, without expressing an opinion, that the point is now on the record for the promoters of the Bill. It is hard to imagine, but if I were a promoter of a private Bill, I would certainly be keen for everything to be dealt with in one Bill, rather than face a situation in which my Bill was amended and put on the statute book in a form that would not comply with legislation brought forward by the Government in due course. One difficulty the Government may have is that to amend private legislation that is different in different parts of the country could either involve hybrid Bills or rely on individual local authorities to bring forward their own private Bills, with all the scope that would offer for people to raise petitions and so on.
	There is a serious issue about the status of pedlars, and what was said in the other place and resulted in these Lords amendments is highly pertinent to today’s discussion. The noble Lord Bilston told their lordships that the Bills were disproportionate, and that there was concern to protect the rights of
	“genuine pedlars…who play by the rules, who move around when trading and who do not use oversized stores to display their wares.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 443.]
	That is why he was keen to include in the Bill provisions to restrict the size of stores that can be used by pedlars, but otherwise enable them to carry on as before. His concerns were reflected by other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness Knight of Collingtree who said that, in essence, and as far as she interpreted the Bills, local authorities were
	“seeking the total eradication of pedlars from their streets.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 445.]
	Their lordships were, I think, wise and helpful in responding to the concerns expressed by pedlars on these issues, but I am not sure that they went as far as they could have done in ensuring that the new regime will work well in practice. The principal reason for saying that is reflected in my amendments to C9, which are centred around whether we should have “designated areas” or streets. Everybody understands a street; it has a name and can be found on a Google map—just to show how modern I am—and that name can be seen at the side of the street as someone walks along. A “designated area”, however, is much vaguer and could be large or small. The most difficult concept for us to deal with in clause 9, as amended, is that subsection (7) now states:
	“The council may designate an area for the purposes of this section only if it has reason to believe that it is necessary to do so to ensure road safety or prevent obstruction of the highway.”
	I have tabled three amendments to subsection (7). Amendment (e) would leave out “an area” and insert “a street”, and amendment (f) would remove the words
	“it has reason to believe”
	thereby introducing an objective, rather than subjective, test as to whether the provision is necessary to ensure road safety.
	My biggest concern is expressed in amendment (g), which seeks to leave out the words
	“or to prevent obstruction of the highway”.
	Obstruction of the highway is a wide and vague term, and means that any trolley, including one that complies with the sizes in the Bill, could be regarded as capable of creating an obstruction in the highway. The wording of the Lords amendment would enable a council to develop its bad faith towards pedlars. There is a lot of evidence that councils have such bad faith and that they wish to support the interests of their own street traders, who are licensed and pay substantial fees. Councils want to protect that income against competition from pedlars. We know that such ill will exists. The current wording would facilitate its development to the detriment of pedlars.

David Nuttall: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, if the words of the Lords amendment remained and were taken literally, virtually any article in the highway could be construed as an obstruction of it? It would therefore be possible for the authority to name virtually any street as being at risk of falling foul of the provision.

Christopher Chope: Exactly—my hon. Friend is right to make that point.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way—he is being exceptionally generous. In his desire to rush through his speech so that we can complete the business today, he has not admitted the fact that any obstruction of the highway is a police matter, and that they can deal with it. The measure is therefore superfluous.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Such measures are quite often a matter of interpretation. The trained police officer is in a far better position to interpret the law than a council that is prejudiced against the interests of pedlars. To reinforce the point about prejudice, the noble Lord Strasburger said on Third Reading that:
	“It was alleged that pedlars create a situation that attracts pickpockets, but…no evidence was offered. It was also said that pedlars cause obstruction of the highway. Little evidence for this allegation was offered apart from a small number of cases where wide and expanding trolleys had been used…The witnesses who spoke for the local authorities were somewhat unconvincing. We heard evidence from pedlars that many council officers and the police are ignorant about the 1871 Act, and we also heard much evidence of a bullying culture on the part of council officials towards honest and hard-working pedlars.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 451-52.]
	That is why we need to be alert to the precise wording of the Lords amendments. We need to ensure that the intention is to establish a level playing field for pedlars and street traders, and to ensure that pedlars cannot be undermined by over-zealous or prejudiced council officials. For those reasons, Lords amendment C9 would be much improved by amendments (a) to (h), which I have tabled.
	Amendment (h) would remove subsection (8), which states that:
	“The provisions of sub-paragraph…(2)…of Schedule 4 to the 1982 Act shall apply to a resolution under this section as they apply to a resolution under that paragraph but as if…for ‘street’ there were substituted ‘area’”.
	That completely undermines the concept of pedlars’ freedom to go from house to house and sell their wares on the public highway by trading from street to street.
	The Lords amendments grouped under the heading “Pedlars and street trading” are a significant improvement.

Philip Davies: I was concerned that my hon. Friend seemed to be coming to a close. He does not seem to have mentioned—if he did, he glossed over it very quickly—Lords amendment C8, which relates to leaving out clause 4, something I think he mentioned only in passing. Does he have a view on whether leaving out clause 4 is a requirement of the services directive? It is unclear to me.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that to the attention of the House, because it takes us back to our discussions on clause 4 in the previous Parliament. It was in the context of the provision of services that the issue of the services directive was raised. That was why, as I recall, we were arguing that the provision of services should not be covered under these particular local Acts. There seems to be a recognition that clause 4 is outlawed by the services directive. What I do not understand—I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about this—is why the directive also applies to pedlars who are dealing not in services, but goods. How does the directive apply to the sale of goods by pedlars? That is causing concern among the pedlar fraternity.
	There may be as many as 4,000 pedlars in this country, so the implications are significant. They are concerned that if the legislation, which sets out a separate regime for pedlars and has been established for well over 100 years, is torn up and repealed, it may be that the significant status and freedom that pedlars have hitherto enjoyed—of being able to obtain a certificate and, as long as they are of good character, trade from door to door, place to place and town to town—will be removed from them.
	As was said in their lordships’ House, pedlary goes back long before the time of Shakespeare to the time of Chaucer, if not before. Therefore, to tear up the 1871 Act, as the Government seem to be proposing in their consultation paper, would be damaging to the interests of pedlars.

Peter Bone: Perhaps my hon. Friend can explain something to me before he concludes his opening remarks on this group of amendments. It is Government policy to encourage micro-businesses, and pedlars are small business men at the very smallest level. Therefore, it appears to me that these councils are going against Government policy.

Christopher Chope: That may well be so. If councils are going against Government policy, one would expect the Government to say to their supporters in the Chamber that they wish them to vote on the amendments in a particular way.
	Sadly, my hon. Friend the Minister is temporarily not in his place, but I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) in his place instead. I am sure he will make a careful note of what I am about to say. Under the heading, “Chapter 1 - Proposal to repeal the Pedlars Acts 1871 and 1881 (Part 2 of the draft Regulations at Annex A)”, the Government’s consultation paper, which is still out for consultation, reads:
	“Below we detail our proposals (reflected in the proposed draft Regulations set out at Annex A) to repeal the Pedlars Acts 1871 and 1881 in relation to the whole of the UK.”
	That is not a discussion of the possibility of repealing the Acts, but a specific proposal to repeal the Acts in toto. The proposal might still be out to consultation, but the Government have effectively made up their mind to repeal the Acts.
	For reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and others explained, the Government have been diffident about declaring their hand in relation to the provisions in the Bills when they have had the opportunity to do so. One of the difficulties when considering Lords amendments is finding out why they were proposed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) just pointed out, removing clause 4 from this Bill and equivalent provisions in the other Bills was not referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey. It was taken as a given, despite its having significant implications.
	Neither was there proper explanation of why, if they thought that removing clause 4 would satisfy the services directive, the Government now say that to satisfy it we would effectively have to repeal clause 5 in toto and not replace it with any other provision relating to pedlars.

Philip Davies: During the debate on the first group of amendments, my hon. Friend said, quite rightly, that the Lords had “filleted” the Bill. On the second group, does he contend that the removal of clause 4 and the total rewriting of clause 5 has the same effect of destroying the original arguments for why the Bill was necessary?

Christopher Chope: Absolutely. This takes us back to the precursors to these Bills, one of which was the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill. The argument put forward by the promoters was that life was intolerable for retailers in the city centres because of the activities of pedlars, and therefore that pedlars needed to be banned outright from the city centres. Now, as a result of their lordships’ amendment, the promoters have recognised that pedlars are welcome and free to operate in city centres—or is that really what they intend? Does the local authority really want pedlars to be free, or will it seize on the provisions about obstructing the highways to create designated areas where pedlars cannot operate?

Philip Davies: Does that mean that clause 5, as amended by amendment C9, would cause more confusion about what would be allowed, making it difficult for a pedlar to be clear about how each of the four local authorities might interpret the same clause, even though the provisions are the same for each authority?

Christopher Chope: Absolutely, because this clause—new clause 5, as I am calling it—effectively gives local authorities the discretion to interpret in their own way what they regard
	as a road safety issue or a potential obstruction of the highway, and what it is necessary to do to ensure road safety or prevent an obstruction of the highway. If local authorities are able to persuade themselves that something is necessary for the purposes of road safety—a wide concept that includes pedestrian safety—and they couple that with the need to prevent obstruction of the highway, that almost drives a coach and horses through the provisions. Local authorities would thereby retain almost absolute discretion to designate areas as they wished, potentially arbitrarily way to the detriment of the pedlar fraternity.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend’s amendment (f) would remove the words
	“it has reason to believe that”
	from subsection (7) of the clause inserted by Lords amendment C9. I apologise for appearing for ever to be picking his legal brains, but does he have any idea what, as far as a court is concerned, would constitute a legitimate “reason to believe”?

Christopher Chope: Obviously I cannot give any legal advice, but the short answer is that if we are talking about a subjective test, all the council has to do is to say that it has reason to believe, whereas if we are talking about an objective test, the issue is not what the council believes, but what actually happened and the impact. If something was going to be an obstruction to the highway or have an impact on road safety, that could be objectively verified.

Philip Davies: Is not the key to this the word “reason”? The council must have a reason to believe, as opposed to just believing without reason. Presumably, there must be some tangible reason to justify the belief; I am just concerned about how strenuous that reason would need to be.

Christopher Chope: I cannot advise my hon. Friend on that. Obviously the reasonableness of any reason that was put forward could, I suppose, be tested, although that is more an academic or theoretical question, rather than a question about what will happen in practice. My concern is that the provision will be used to perpetuate a campaign of discrimination against pedlars and try to drive them out of particular cities, which was of course the original intent behind the four Bills.

Philip Davies: What I am trying to get at is this: if my hon. Friend’s amendment (f) were accepted and we removed the words “reason to believe”—so that subsection (7) read: “only if it is necessary to do so”—what difference does he think that would make in practice to how the council had to operate?

Christopher Chope: If we left out the words “it has reason to believe that”, subsection (7) would read: “The council may designate an area for the purposes of this section only if it is necessary to do so to ensure road safety”. That is something on which evidence could be drawn from all angles. One could argue that designating an area was necessary for road safety or that it was not, but it would not depend on the council. Under subsection (7) as currently worded, as long as the council says that in its view designating an area is necessary for road safety, that is the end of the matter and it cannot be challenged.

Philip Davies: I understand the thrust of what my hon. Friend is saying and, as he knows, I am sympathetic to it, but if subsection (7) was simply left to read: “The council may designate an area for the purposes of this section only if it is necessary to do so”, would not the people deciding whether it was necessary to designate an area still be the council?

Christopher Chope: Yes, obviously they would—I am sorry that it seems to have taken my hon. Friend quite a long time to drill out the answer he was looking for from this particular stone—because the council will be the one determining the matter. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is going to make reference in his own contribution to the circularity of the argument, but I understand the point he is getting at. I think the way to put it is to say “I surrender”.
	Looking at the amendments in the context of the revisions to the legislation envisaged by the Government, my own view is that it would be wrong for the House to accept amendment C9 as drafted. Amendment C9 is a lot better than the provisions that were in place before it. If it were simply an amendment to leave out clause 5, that would be fine, but to
	“insert the following new Clause”
	as set out in C9 risks the danger that the provisions, when enacted, will be totally at odds with legislation brought forward by the Government, whether it be legislation relating to the size of the trolleys or to the circumstances in which those trolleys can be used by pedlars, particularly because C9 seeks to amend the pedlars legislation at a time when the Government are saying that those Acts have to be repealed.

David Nuttall: On that very point, is my hon. Friend aware of any reason why such very specific measurements are included in their lordships’ amendment C9? I refer to where a width of 0.75 metres, a depth of 0.5 metres and a height of 1.25 metres are specified. It would have been far better to go with the Government’s originally suggested amendments and measurements of 1 metre and 2 metres.

Christopher Chope: The answer to my hon. Friend’s question is that when their lordships drew up these amendments in November 2011, the Government had not declared their hand. They did not do that until November 2012—and nobody can be blamed for not anticipating what the Government would say.

Peter Bone: I may be wrong, but could it possibly be that 0.88 metres is actually equivalent to a yard?

Christopher Chope: If that is correct, I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I cannot understand why we do not use yards and feet rather than refer to 0.88 metres. We always say when we come to this place that we always learn something. That is certainly something I have learned today, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for it.
	Let me reach a summation on these particular issues. I have seen some movement on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey, and I hope he will
	ensure that we have time to listen to the Minister’s response, as it is very important for the Minister to send out some clear messages to pedlars, many of whom are very worried by the proposed changes to the legislation and are confused by the attitude of the Government, particularly towards amendment C9 when looked at alongside the Government’s consultation paper.
	I fear that an atmosphere is developing in which the Bill’s promoters think, “Well, it has taken us so long, so rather than try to improve it further, we might as well try to drive it home as quickly as we can and curtail debate as much as possible”, which obviously has the effect of creating a reaction. We know that the House’s procedures have resulted in a considerable curtailing of the rights of Members to speak in some debates. Fortunately, in private business, we still have the right to try to insist on getting the promoters of Bills to listen to our arguments.
	I think that that is what we are looking for on this occasion. We are asking the promoters to reflect on the arguments that we have presented, and to consider tabling their own amendments to the Lords amendments. One of the virtues of a debate organised in this way is that, in this instance, we have so far discussed and voted on only Lords amendments C3, C4 and C5, which means that the promoters still have an opportunity to table their own amendments to those on which we have not yet voted.

Peter Bone: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s full explanation of the position. As I understand it, the benefit of the procedure that we are using today will result, eventually, in a better Act of Parliament. By allowing the promoters to reflect on the arguments and then come up with amendments that may even improve on those tabled by my hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and me, we are likely to end up with a much better Bill. Would it not be great if the Government followed the example set by private business and dropped programme motions? Then this could happen week in, week out when we debated Government business.

Christopher Chope: I think that there is a strong case for asking the Procedure Committee to look into the possibility of applying the principles relating to private business to public business. What has happened today demonstrates the virtues of being able to engage in what might be described as an iterative process, during which we discuss the issues, and the promoters have a chance to reflect on the points that have been made—over weeks, months or years—and to respond to them accordingly.
	I do not need to speak any longer on this group of amendments—[Hon. Members: “Shame!”] I know that—
	Three hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings, the debate stood adjourned (Order, 22 January).
	Debate to be resumed on Wednesday 6 February at Four o’clock.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	Education Committee Report (GCSE Reform)

Graham Stuart: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of the publication of the Eighth Report of the Education Committee, From GCSEs to EBCs: The Government’s proposals for reform, HC 808.
	It is a pleasure to participate in this relatively new way of presenting reports to Parliament.
	I have in my hand a copy of the report “From GCSEs to EBCs: The Government’s proposals for reform”, which was published today. Decisions about reforming GCSEs and the way in which they are administered are some of the most important decisions that Ministers will make. Those decisions will have profound and far-reaching consequences that will affect the lives of many children for years to come, and they need to be considered carefully, as part of a coherent review of curriculum, assessment and school accountability for this stage of education.
	The Education Committee was not reassured by the Secretary of State’s assertion that
	“coherence comes at the end of the process.”
	Coherence is achieved not by accident, but by design. No sensible reform of assessment can take place without clarity in regard to what is to be taught and how the qualifications will be used in the school accountability system.
	The Education Committee believes that the Government have yet to prove their case that GCSEs in key academic subjects should necessarily be abolished and replaced by the new English baccalaureate certificates. We also fear that they are trying to do too much too quickly. We agree with them that improvements should be made to GCSEs and to the system in which they operate, in order to restore public confidence in our exams.
	We welcome the changes that the Government are introducing, such as a return to end of course exams in most subjects and limits on the number of re-sits, but the Government must demonstrate that the GCSE brand is so discredited that it is beyond repair. Ministers want to introduce a new qualification and a step change in standards, and to alter the way in which exams are administered, all at the same time and to a tight timetable.

David Nuttall: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important facets of any examination system is the trust that employers have in it?

Graham Stuart: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. The Government want to restore the currency of 16-year-olds’ qualifications, and restore confidence among employers and universities in the value of those qualifications. That is one of the Government’s aims and they are right to take that approach. Although I am not talking about the main, fundamental changes beneath the surface, it is interesting to note just how few people from the university sector or employers agree with the decision to abolish GCSEs in the core subjects. They worry about what
	that says about the other subjects left behind—I am sure that my hon. Friend will be concerned about what it says about GCSE religious education. How can it be right that those subjects are seen as second tier compared with the reformed EBCs?
	We saw last year, with GCSE English, the turbulence and disruption that can happen when changes are made to a high-stakes qualification. The Government are proposing change on a much greater scale and the risks are correspondingly higher. We are concerned that rushing through multiple fundamental changes could jeopardise the quality of the reforms and the stability of the wider exam system. The Committee has particular concerns about how well the Government’s proposals will serve lower-attaining pupils, who are often the most disadvantaged. It is unclear how raising the bar will automatically help those young people, and we call on the Government to rethink their plans for a statement of achievement, specifically for lower-attaining pupils, as it could be less useful to young people than a low-grade GCSE or alternative qualification. It must not be allowed to become a badge of failure. One of the Government’s stated priorities—rightly so—is to narrow the attainment gap between the richest and poorest students. We have not seen evidence to suggest that EBCs will do that any better than GCSEs already do.
	The Committee agrees that changes are needed to the way exams are run. We concluded in our report last year that the current system leads to downward pressure on standards. All options for reform, including franchising subjects to exam boards, have benefits and drawbacks. Our concern is that the Government need to give proper consideration to the likely unintended consequences of franchising, as well as to the complexities of the tendering process. Today’s west coast main line news shows how easy it is for Governments to get that wrong, and the profound and expensive consequences that can arise.
	Significant concerns about the Government’s proposals have been expressed by curriculum and assessment experts, including the chief regulator at Ofqual, and by employers and key figures in the arts world. The Secretary of State told us that
	“if a red light flashes, we will take account of it.”
	What we are saying to the Secretary of State today with our report is that we believe a red light is indeed flashing, and we call on the Government to take time for careful consideration, slow the pace of change and ensure that their reforms are built to last.

Kevin Brennan: I thank the Chair and the rest of the Committee for their report. Does he agree that the problem with the Secretary of State’s EBC proposals is that although there is a consensus that we need reform to exams at 16, this is the wrong reform, being done to the wrong timetable and being done the wrong way round, because we do not yet know what the curriculum is? As a former teacher and educator who went through this kind of change when GCSEs were introduced after O-levels, I cannot, for the life of me, see how this change can actually take place. Even if it does, I cannot see how it can last for long. Without proper piloting and proper consensus across the educational and political worlds, these major high-stake exam reforms just do not last, as we know from experience. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be better if the Secretary of State listened to what the Committee said,
	scrapped this particular proposal and worked together across the piece for a lasting reform that will command a broad consensus and would be proofed against any future political changes?

Graham Stuart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his invention and I certainly agree with his last point. Let us be clear that the Select Committee’s report does not say that the Government should necessarily scrap the reforms but that they should make the case for them. They need to prove that the GCSE brand is so fundamentally broken that it cannot be reformed. It seemed to us to be difficult to see what was so intrinsic to the GCSE in the core subjects that could not be repaired with the right approach.
	The hon. Gentleman is also right to highlight the need for consensus. Some 650,000 children a year move through our education system and there are nearly 500,000 teachers in state schools. This is a mammoth enterprise and not something to which we can make quick changes. The repercussions will go on for a long time and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take it well if I chide his party by pointing out what happened with the diploma. Then, we had a Secretary of State who was determined to bring about change and who rightly identified the need to improve vocational education and qualifications in this country, but the assessment and exam experts said that he was going at an unrealistic pace, suggested that he slowed down and said that there was a risk that the tremendous legacy of transforming vocational education in this country could end up withering on the vine. That is exactly what happened. The children who took the diploma will have a certificate that employers will struggle to recognise in a few years’ time, vast amounts of public money were expended and those in the education system who marched to that tune and worked so hard to bring colleges and schools together to deliver the diploma have been left high and dry. We do not want to see that happen to these reforms, which are even more fundamental to the education system. We do not want the reforms brought in by this Secretary of State to go the way of the diploma.
	We need only to look back to last year and the English GCSE furore. The judge in the judicial review has not yet pronounced, so I hesitate to talk too much about it, but many of the problems arose from the fact that the previous Government decided to change what was taught, how it was taught, who assessed it and how it was assessed all at once. That caused what happened in 2012 and whenever that many changes are made to a qualification, there is turbulence and volatility. That is why we saw so many schools with a history of doing well suddenly doing badly. The first EBCs will be taught
	in 2015 if the Government proceed according to their current timetable, so the timing will be tight. This will be a much bigger reform than that of the English GCSE last year and the risks and downsides are great.
	We are not saying that the Government have necessarily got it wrong and we agree broadly with their critique of the existing situation. We also agree about the need for more rigour, for reform and for world-class qualifications at 16 to be put in place. We are questioning whether these particular reforms and the abolition of GCSEs in the core subjects need necessarily go ahead. We remain to be convinced of that argument.
	A major secondary issue, which is probably less likely to be picked up by the press but could prove phenomenally significant, is the move to franchising. In effect, that gives us an insight into why the timetable is so truncated. Awarding bodies have not seen the outcome of the revised curriculum and therefore do not know exactly what they are supposed to teach, but they are having to design the new qualifications now. They will thereby effectively control the curriculum, rather than schools and educators. The awarding bodies are designing the qualifications now and the timetable means that a winner will be chosen for each of the core subjects by this summer. The Secretary of State will pick a winner who will stay in place for five years. What happens at the end of that time? It brings up a lot of questions.
	If everybody who has expertise in assessment in English works for one board and if quite a lot of people retire because they are not prepared to move, meaning that we lose expertise, will there be genuine competition at the end of that five years? Or will we simply have created a monopoly in certain subjects for certain awarding bodies? What about flexibility during that time? What if changes need to be introduced? Will the spec that the Secretary of State chooses this summer have to be fixed in place for five years? We do not really know the detail—there is an awful lot that we do not know—and it important that we get this right.
	I want this evangelising, driven, passionate and committed Secretary of State to be remembered as a tremendous, successful and reforming Secretary of State—there is every chance of that—but if he makes errors with the examinations that sit at the centre of our system, he will be remembered not in that way, but as having presided over something that did not work out. I do not want that to be the Secretary of State’s legacy and I certainly do not want it to be legacy of this Government, but I know that Education Ministers are champions who will want to ensure that we get this right, as will the Secretary of State himself.
	Question put and agreed to.

Select Committee Effectiveness, Resources and Powers

Alan Beith: I beg to move,
	That this House welcomes the report of the Liaison Committee on Select Committee effectiveness, resources and powers, Second Report of Session 2012-13, HC 697, and the responses to it, Third Report of Session 2012-13, HC 911; welcomes the positive impact of the Wright reforms, particularly the election of committee chairs and members, on the effectiveness and authority of select committees; endorses the Committee’s recommendations for committee best practice and the revised core tasks for departmental select committees; looks forward to agreement on procedures for committee statements on the floor of the House and arrangements for debates on committee reports; agrees that co-operation from Government is crucial to effective scrutiny; and supports the Committee’s call for a new relationship between Parliament and Government, which recognises the public interest in greater accountability.
	It is a pleasure to move the motion, which stands in my name and that of many Committee Chairs. It is fortuitous—it is about the only bit of good luck we have had this afternoon—that this debate follows a statement by a Committee Chair about a report that his Committee has produced. That relatively recent innovation tends to work rather better when the statement is made closer to the ministerial statements of the day, but it is welcome and something that we simply did not have in previous Parliaments.
	I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee, the Chair of which is in the Chamber, for allowing the debate to be held. The motion is based on a report that the Liaison Committee produced in November and the responses to it from the Government and the House authorities, which we have published.
	There are various aspects of the role of Parliament: we make laws; we create and oppose Governments, with this House being the forum in which the political contest between parties takes place; and we raise the grievances of our constituents as individuals or communities. However, there is a fourth function, which was sometimes neglected in earlier years: holding all Governments and the public service to account on how public money is spent, the effectiveness of administration and the development of policy.
	Over the years, the Select Committee system has developed as the main means of addressing that fourth objective. The creation of a comprehensive structure of departmental Committees moved the process a long way forward at the time of the late Norman St John-Stevas. The previous Parliament left us a valuable legacy of further strengthening with the report of the Wright Committee which, in particular, put in place the election of Select Committee Chairs by the House as a whole, as well as the election of Committee members within parties. That has given Committees a new authority and mandate, and the influx of new Members, as well as the return of several experienced and senior Members to Select Committee work, has built on that authority.
	Many new and more senior Members find their involvement in Select Committees just about the most rewarding part of their work in Parliament. They spend many a Wednesday listening to, or attempting to take part in, Prime Minister’s questions and they troop through
	the Lobby to support their party’s view in particular votes, but they can really get their teeth into things through the Select Committee process, in which they have the opportunity to question and challenge how things are being done, and to influence the shape of things in the future.
	Our Committees have very small teams of staff, but the quality of their work and the way in which they cope with the demanding timetables of the Committee process are essential elements of Committees’ success. Our staff include people drawn from the Clerks Department of the House. Some appointments are made from outside, and we have indicated that there are circumstances in which it might be appropriate for such appointments to be made not only at the more specialist levels but even for the Clerk of a Committee. The Scrutiny Unit is a valuable resource for Select Committees, and we also draw on the Library—indirectly and directly, as Library staff are seconded to Select Committee service—and the National Audit Office, which I have found ready to co-operate not only with the Public Accounts Committee, as it does primarily, but with individual Committees when its expertise is valuable to their work.
	Select Committees have proved to be one of the most effective ways of promoting public engagement with the House of Commons. We are always being urged to increase public engagement, and if we look at the wide range of people waiting on the Committee corridors in this building and Portcullis House to give evidence to Committees or to listen to their proceedings, and then think of all the people who watch the sittings at home on the Parliament channel or through the web system, we realise that Committees probably engage many more people than much else that goes on in the Commons. People are engaged because they are closely interested in the Committees’ work.
	Today the Hansard Society published some survey results which showed a 9% increase in the past year in the public belief that Parliament holds Government to account. The survey showed that figure rising to 47%, which is just short of half, but it is a nine percentage point increase on the same question the previous year.
	Select Committee inquiries have had a very high public profile. Most striking was the global coverage achieved by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s inquiry into News International and phone hacking, but others, too, have attracted a high level of interest. The Science and Technology Committee’s report on the Government’s alcohol guidelines stimulated widespread discussion about safe drinking limits. The Treasury Committee’s work on retail banking has attracted close interest not only in the financial world but among the wider public, and the Banking Commission, which is now conducting its inquiries, is a partner of the Treasury Committee—a Joint Committee drawn partly from the Treasury Committee and led by its Chairman. The Foreign Affairs Committee’s current inquiry into the UK’s relations with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain is attracting international interest.
	Some Committees are less often in the national media but have a very high profile in the professional press and the stakeholder community. The International Development Committee is one example. Another is the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, whose Chairman is at a funeral today, or she would have been here pointing to much of the work that it does. There are many
	examples of the work of my own Committee, the Justice Committee, changing the way things are done. As a direct result of a report that we produced, new guidelines have been introduced by the Director of Public Prosecutions on charging on a joint enterprise basis, which had proved to be quite a difficult and controversial issue. I had a letter only the other day from a Minister setting out precisely how the Government would implement the Committee’s recommendations—not challenging them, but setting out how the Government was going to implement them. That is a record of which Select Committees can be proud.

Graham Stuart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have so far barely scratched the surface of using social media to engage people with the workings of Parliament? The Select Committees are particularly well placed to do that, and he will know that before a session with the Secretary of State for Education, the Select Committee went on Twitter with #askGove to ask people to come up with questions. We were inundated—there were more than 5,000 tweets. We sorted through them, grouped them by theme and went through them with the Secretary of State who, in typical style, was able to give rapid-fire answers and people felt they were genuinely able to engage with Parliament through the Select Committee and hold the powerful to account.

Alan Beith: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. My own Committee has held online consultations with people in the public service who cannot come out openly to express their views, but whose views are important to us. We did an online consultation with prison officers which gave us a much better understanding of their working environment and problems. We did the same with probation officers. We had difficulty with the Ministry of Justice when we tried to do the same with court staff who were affected by the court interpretation and translation service changes, on which we will report in a few days. We were rather surprised to find the Department much less co-operative in that instance than it had been on previous occasions.
	The social media are extremely important to the work of Select Committees, as are Parliament’s website facilities. The web and intranet service is working on some new designs for Select Committee homepages that will allow for more individual branding, giving Committees more control over the appearance of their online presence and greater flexibility in respect of what individual Committees can promote on their homepage. We would like to see this implemented as soon as possible. I do not claim to be the House’s expert on social media—I am the last person to make such a claim—but they clearly offer tremendous opportunities for engaging with the people who are affected by what is agreed and passed in the House. That is one of the things at the forefront of Committees’ work.
	Our report honestly assesses where Select Committees can do better. It makes a range of best practice recommendations. We encourage Committees to be forward-looking in their scrutiny of departmental performance, not confining themselves to raking over the coals of past events unless there are important lessons to be learned from them. We urge Committees to give more attention to the financial implications of
	departmental policy and how Departments assess the effectiveness of their spending. We encourage them to experiment with different approaches to evidence taking; to broaden the range of witnesses and make more use of commissioned research; to produce shorter reports, making it clear which are the most important recommendations and who is supposed to be carrying them out; to follow up recommendations to ensure that reports have impact; and to report to the House at least once each Session on what their Committee has been doing.
	Moreover, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) said, Committees need to be more effective at communicating. That involves the social media, but it also involves traditional print and broadcast media. We get a lot of coverage and a lot of interest from the broadcasters. Occasionally they annoy us by failing to distinguish between Select Committees of this House, elected by the House, and all-party groups, which have a role and a usefulness but are not the same thing. A Select Committee of this House is a Committee of people who have a degree of expertise developed over a period but are not united by a common cause in their membership of the Committee, as is so often the case with an all-party group. There is a big difference between the nature of a report produced by a Select Committee and one produced by an all-party group. The use of the term “a group of MPs” to describe either body, which we find in the broadcasts even of the BBC, is something we deplore.
	The motion before the House invites us to endorse these best practice recommendations. They are not a straitjacket; it is for each Committee to determine its own priorities in how it goes about its business. However, Committees have core tasks, and we hope that they will see the good sense of the recommendations that we are making; indeed, many are already doing so.
	One of the areas where we want to develop the work of Committees is in our scrutiny of policy development at the European level. We have had a lot of discussions about this with the European Scrutiny Committee and with the Minister for Europe. Far too often, this House is confronted with draft European legislation long after the important decisions and negotiations have taken place. Committees can much more usefully engage at the early stages, as long as they can be clear which work programme issues of the Commission are attracting real interest and are likely to get somewhere; otherwise they can get submerged in a vast amount of material that is not really going anywhere.

Keith Vaz: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that another way to ensure that we scrutinise much better what is happening in Europe is to have better liaison relationships with Chairs of Committees in other national Parliaments? That will help us to understand what is happening in those countries and develop these relationships even further.

Alan Beith: Yes, I agree. I have tried to do that, as has the right hon. Gentleman, conspicuously so, in the home affairs field. We should also communicate more effectively with British Members of the European Parliament so that they are aware when Committees have done some work on a subject and do not go blind into discussions completely unaware that this Parliament has already examined that subject in detail and expressed
	views on it. We have also been arguing for some time that we want the very good assistance that we get from UK representatives in Brussels and their staff to be used on a more active and less passive basis so that Committees are alerted when issues that they could usefully consider are coming up, such as those that may be of concern to the Government or are likely to excite controversy.
	We talk about the powers and privileges of Committees. Sometimes an impression is given in public discussion that Committees are lacking the powers to do their job. By and large, I do not believe that to be the case. There are improvements that we could make, and the report deals with some of them. There are also some things that it is rather difficult to do—for example, in relation to privilege and the compelling of witnesses. The Liaison Committee is not convinced that statute is necessarily the right way to go, but the issue is shortly to be examined in a Joint Committee.

John Whittingdale: My right hon. Friend will be aware that my Committee—the Culture, Media and Sport Committee—has perhaps tested the boundaries of Select Committee powers more than most. The situation seems unsatisfactory in two areas. First, when we served warrants on Rupert and James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks to appear before the Committee, it was not at all clear what the consequences would be had they failed to respond to that summons. Secondly, when we reported to this House that we believed we had been lied to by people who had given evidence to the Committee, it was, and remains, extremely unclear what the consequences of that are.

Alan Beith: That is certainly true and I think it is one of the issues that will have to be examined by the Joint Committee, which is about to embark on this work. The problems are difficult to solve and affect only a few inquiries. They certainly affected the work of my hon. Friend’s Committee, which was notably successful in getting some potentially unwilling witnesses to appear before it. I congratulate him on what the Committee achieved.
	It should be stressed that, for the vast majority of the time, Committees deal with willing witnesses who are very happy to come and be examined by us, even if, sometimes, they are critically examined. Most of the time, we are gaining information from willing witnesses. I will come in a moment to what happens when we deal with Government. So far as all other bodies and persons are concerned, the instances in which a draconian power might be required are very few. My hon. Friend is right that such powers as the House has in this area are not very easy to use, and we will have to further consider that issue.

Angela Eagle: What was the Liaison Committee’s thinking behind paragraph 133 of the report? It states that the Committee was
	“persuaded that the disadvantages of enshrining parliamentary privilege in statute would outweigh the benefits”,
	but that conclusion was reached ahead of all the work that is being done. It seems to pre-empt a lot of work that is ongoing.

Alan Beith: It was an honest statement of the view of Committee members that the possibility of the activities of the House being questioned in the courts as a consequence of the exercise of powers would be more damaging to the House than the current situation. Were the Joint Committee to come to a different conclusion after careful examination, we would, obviously, look at the issue again, but it was an honest statement of the Liaison Committee’s opinion at the time. My opinion has not changed so far, but I am clear that the matter will have to be looked at very carefully indeed.

Graham Stuart: I must back my right hon. Friend and say how much I agree with him. I was one of those on the Liaison Committee who felt that very strongly. We have had people who were not keen to appear before the Education Committee, but they were told that they were expected to turn up, that it would be seen as a failure on their part not to do so and that powers could be exercised against them if they did not do so. They came. That is the test. If we move to something more legalistic, people will hire lawyers to find out exactly how many days’ delay they can use, based on precedent, so that they can put it off as long as they can and, in effect, thwart the will of Parliament, which is for them to appear. Whatever the current situation’s shortcomings, in my opinion, subject to what the Joint Committee finds out, it is the right one: it works for Parliament and does so in a speedy and effective way.

Alan Beith: My hon. Friend puts the point extremely well.
	The appearances of members of the Government and civil service officials are governed by the Osmotherly rules. The Committee is stringent about those rules in paragraph 113:
	“We do not accept that the Osmotherly rules should have any bearing on whom a select committee should choose to summon as a witness. The Osmotherly rules are merely internal for Government. They have never been accepted by Parliament. Where the inquiry relates to departmental delivery rather than ministerial decision-making, it is vital that committees should be able to question the responsible official directly—even if they have moved on to another job. It does of course remain the case that an official can decline to answer for matters of policy, on the basis that it is for the minister to answer for the policy, but officials owe a direct obligation to Parliament to report on matters of fact and implementation. This does not alter the doctrine of ministerial accountability in any way. Ministers should never require an official to withhold information from a select committee. It cannot be a breach of the principle of ministerial responsibility for an official to give a truthful answer to a select committee question.”

Joan Walley: I welcome the opportunity to debate this report briefly. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is not just about officials appearing before Committees? The Environmental Audit Committee had hoped that the Deputy Prime Minister could meet our long-standing request for him to appear before us and report back on his work on the Rio+20 agenda, but it was impossible for him to do so in his capacity as the Deputy Prime Minister. We have, therefore, had to arrange for him to appear before the Liaison Committee. That throws up the problem of a lack of accountability not just from officials, but from Ministers as well.

Alan Beith: The hon. Lady raises an—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I just remind the right hon. Gentleman that we said that speeches should last between 10 and 15 minutes? He has now had 19 minutes, and other Members wish to speak. We also do not have as much time as usual.

Alan Beith: Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will bear it in mind that several hon. Members, having looked at the clock, have decided to get their point across by intervening on me.
	I should like to answer the hon. Lady’s question. She makes an important point. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have both taken the view that once they started going to Select Committees, they would end up being asked to go to all of them. Our response to both of them was that if that was their position, we would bring them to the Liaison Committee so that they could be questioned on matters in which they had played an important part.
	I referred to the Osmotherly rules at some length because they are an important point of contention between the Committee and Ministers. We deal more fully with that in our report. We are saying to the Government that they need to engage with us on the way in which the Government relate to Parliament, rather than simply talking about consulting us on revising the rules.
	The world has changed significantly. The election of Committees, and the way in which Members now see them as the main means of holding the Government to account, means that the Government must recognise that things are clearly different. Many Departments co-operate very well with the Committees, and quite a few Ministers find it helpful to have Committees looking at issues over which they—the Ministers—are involved in internal battles, either within their Department or with the Government. Many a Minister has had cause to thank a Select Committee for its support on such issues. There must be a recognition right across Government that Select Committees have a role to play in one of the most important functions of Parliament. There must be a clear understanding that Select Committees are entitled to information and that they should have the full co-operation of the Government.

Keith Vaz: It is a real pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). He covered so much ground with his description of how the Select Committees began that I am tempted just to say, “I agree” and sit down. But this would not be Parliament without everyone adding a little extra to what he has said.
	I should like to acknowledge the presence in the Chamber of many of the Select Committee Chairs. This could almost be the Liaison Committee meeting for the first time in the Chamber of the House of Commons. The Chairmen of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Environmental Audit Committee, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the Education Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee are all here this afternoon, as is my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
	I would not want this debate to consist only of us talking about ourselves and about how well we have all done. The reason that we are in this place, and the reason that so much has changed in the past five years, is that Parliament has changed. The occupant of the Chair, in the person of Mr Speaker, has decided that the procedures of Parliament should make the Government much more accountable than I can remember them being in all the 25 years I have been in the House. I know that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has been here even longer than that. The fact that Mr Speaker has decided to use those processes to a much greater extent than they have ever been used before, and the fact that we have put in place the right reforms and that those on both Front Benches decided to implement them, mean that the Select Committee system is almost there, as far as scrutiny of the Government is concerned. I say “almost there” because, although the Chairman of the Liaison Committee rightly mentioned all the positive aspects of the system, there are a couple of things that I think could make it even better.
	I also want to pay tribute to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, in the persona of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), for going where no Committee, or Committee Chair, has dared to go before. He rightly mentioned phone hacking and the Rupert Murdoch affair, because those events represented a line in the sand for the powers of Select Committees. I can tell him that frequently when witnesses refuse to appear before the Home Affairs Committee, I do not have to come here and seek an order; all I have to do is remind them of what happened to Mr Rupert Murdoch when he decided he would not appear before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee—which conducted a very good inquiry, of course.
	In a sense, however, we are making these rules up as we go along. As has been said, we do not know what powers we have at our disposal if somebody refuses to appear before a Committee. When witnesses say they are sick, I now ask for a sick note sent via a doctor with initials after their name, so I can be certain that that is why the witness cannot attend. We must clarify what these powers are. In one sense, I am reluctant to do so because it is always useful to have the mystique of Parliament—to have the fear of the unknown, so that people do not know what will happen. In that respect, therefore, it is better not to write things down, but to keep them vague and use that as a way to cajole people to appear. At some stage, somebody will refuse to attend and will not answer to a warrant, however, and that is when we will have to decide how to proceed.
	I want to pay tribute to my Committee secretariat staff: Tom Healey, Richard Benwell, Elizabeth Flood and all the other staff who work extremely hard. The Chair of the Liaison Committee said that we had good staff, but he did not point out that we do not have sufficient resources. We need more resources if we are to be able to do our job effectively.
	We need to put a stop to the practice of Clerks being moved around too regularly, and often just when they are about to really get into their job. In the past they have moved rather too swiftly. One of my former Clerks has ended up clerking three Committees and is currently clerking the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. She is so good that, like Ronaldo, she gets passed on to all the big teams. We should allow Committee staff to
	develop their specialisms. I am grateful to the powers that be for the fact that over the past year my Clerks have not changed, and I hope very much that we can stick to the unwritten rule that we have them for the whole of the Parliament, as that enables them to develop fields of expertise.
	We look across the Atlantic in awe at the number of staff the chairs of congressional and senate committees have. Only a few months ago, I was in Washington and I met the chair of the homeland security committee, the equivalent of our Home Affairs Committee. I was told he had a staff of 32 and that was just for the majority side in Congress. I am not suggesting for one moment that we should increase the staffing of the HAC from nine to 32, because I know I would never get away with that. If we are to do our job, however, we need staff with expertise.
	We also need to make sure our Committee staff are, indeed, Committee staff; far too often, they have to go off and do other House duties because that is part of the deal. I want them to be able to concentrate fully on the work we do.
	Despite that little whinge, the HAC has thus far in this Session produced 11 reports, seen 118 witnesses in 49 sittings, and addressed 20 subjects. The House may therefore think that nine staff members is sufficient, and that the HAC should not be given any more staff as that would only mean we would go on for even longer. We are able to do so much work, however, only because of the expertise of the people who work for us.
	The HAC has tried to travel around the country, although we do not do so often enough. We should engage with the public by getting them to come here, although they are very willing to do so because of the new regime that now runs the visitors’ facilities. We should also use social media, as the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) said that he did in the Education Committee. We stole his idea and used it the last time the Home Secretary appeared before the HAC.
	Not all of the questions that were suggested by members of the public were constructive, but it is always nice to hear their thoughts not just about the Home Secretary, but about members of the Home Affairs Committee. That is all about public engagement, and I am willing to try anything new.
	I welcome what has been done by the House authorities to change the websites over the past few years. We should embrace the new technology and develop it in the best way that we can.
	Another way in which we could help the public to understand the distinctive contribution that Select Committees make would be to end the great ballot to find out in which room Select Committees will sit on any given day. In America, Select Committees have confirmed office space and rooms. Under that system, one would know that the Home Affairs Committee would always sit in Committee Room 19. I know that there is a problem in that the broadcasters choose which is the best session to cover.
	I think that the House’s facilities should be used more imaginatively so that not only do we have a degree of permanence in where we sit, but Select Committee
	Chairs are close to their staff. I have an office in Norman Shaw North, but my Select Committee staff are in Millbank. I do not know about other Select Committee Chairs, but I would think that at least 60% to 70% of my work in this House is Select Committee related. It is not difficult to ring up Select Committee staff, but it would be much more helpful if they were in close proximity to the Chairs of their Committees.
	We have reached a stage that some of us would not have thought possible even a few years ago. However, it is not enough to stand still. We need to move forward, because I still believe that the most effective way to scrutinise the operation of any Government is not at the Dispatch Box, where Members have the opportunity to ask just one question, apart from the Leader of the Opposition who gets several bites of the cherry, but in a Select Committee system, where one can probe, ask and sometimes even argue. At the end of the day, I believe that that sort of scrutiny gets a better result.

Nigel Evans: Order. Three Members want to take part in this debate. We also need to get both Front Benchers in and leave a couple of minutes at the end for Sir Alan to wind up. I therefore ask Members to be mindful of the length of their contributions.

Graham Stuart: I will try to be mindful of your suggestion, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	I am delighted that the Backbench Business Committee has allocated time for us to debate the report of the Liaison Committee following the 2010 Wright reforms. It is fair to say that Select Committees are stronger and have more influence on Government than ever before. This is the first Parliament in which the members of Select Committees have been voted for in secret ballots by their own parties, and in which the Chairs of Select Committees have been elected by the whole House. That has given additional independence to Select Committees. It is no wonder that there are grimaces from the faces of Government Whips, and it is right that there should be. If there are not grimaces on the faces of Government Whips, we do not have a strong and assertive enough legislature. We do have an assertive legislature, but we can go further.
	In the Leader of the House, we have such a fine parliamentarian, such a tremendous Minister and a man of such self-confidence, personality and breadth of philosophy that he will not think that he can hold the line and make no concessions. He understands the need for the whole House to improve the way in which it holds the Government to account and to recognise the powerful role that Select Committees play.
	Select Committees not only have a role in scrutiny; they inform the character of this place. In this Chamber, we sit opposite each other and make tribal noises. I like making tribal, partisan noises as much the next man— in fact, probably rather more than most—but Select Committees bring us together and form us in teams across party lines. They build deep friendships and relationships. They help us to understand where other people are coming from. That has a civilising impact on
	the way in which this place works, which I hope permeates through to the way in which we make law. It makes Ministers more confident about conceding ground at times, and means we are more effective in representing the overall interests of the people who send us to this place. If it does that, a Select Committee is a very fine thing indeed.
	Mindful of what you have said, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will drop the rest of my remarks because we have already touched on many good points. I will simply say that Select Committees are stronger now than they were in the past and a positive influence on Parliament. They are an excellent check on the Executive, and I know that the Leader of the House and Ministers will listen to calls from the Liaison Committee to strengthen those powers going forward.

Hywel Francis: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), the Chair of the Liaison Committee. I apologise for missing the first minute or so of the right hon. Gentleman’s excellent and cogent contribution. I was speaking in Westminster Hall on a matter of great interest and concern to him: the Welsh language and the Welsh language channel.
	I welcome the report and wish to identify three recommendations that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has already begun to implement to the benefit, I hope, of both Houses. The first concerns best practice and a recommendation on away-days. We have implemented that recommendation in order to discuss which inquiries we should choose and review our work. In doing so, we have engaged with civil society and outside organisations, and it has been a worthwhile exercise.
	Secondly, there was a recommendation on leading questioners. Our Committee may be a little unusual, because its members comes from two Houses and have a wide range of experience. Decisions on certain inquiries are often led by the recommendation of a particular member. For example, the inquiry on independent living came from a strong proposal from an eminent and experienced member at the time—Baroness Campbell of Surbiton. Although it was implicit, we all recognised that she was the expert, and she basically led that inquiry. Equally, the Committee’s well-known inquiry on extradition was proposed by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), and for most of the time we deferred to him. I was delighted that both inquiries resulted in unanimous reports.
	One intriguing recommendation that I warmly recognise and embrace concerns the importance of principles of diversity and of engaging as fully as possible with civil society and small but well-known groups at national level. For example, yesterday we met Praxis community projects. It has helped a small group, Better Futures, which related to our inquiry into young unaccompanied migrant children. I am certain that the inquiry and report will benefit enormously from the first-hand experiences—often very traumatic experiences—that we heard about from those young unaccompanied migrant children, some of whom were from war-torn countries such as Afghanistan and Sierra Leone.
	On principles of diversity, we are all familiar with the fact that Chairs of Select Committees are invited to conferences, and whether it is a large international conference or a small one, I always benefit from it. I am sure the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) will recall the conference that we both attended and addressed last year on 18 April here in Westminster on Parliaments and human rights. It marked the end of the UK’s chairmanship of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers. It was a sobering experience to have such a wide range of voices and experiences from this country and throughout the world looking specifically at the work of my Committee, and it made me reflect on my work as a Chair and on the work of the Committee as a whole.
	There have been other conferences, including one in November in Geneva on strengthening the role of parliamentarians in establishing human rights, which was organised by the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth secretariat. Human rights are being struggled for, and people from some countries say, “We are freedom fighters and have fought to achieve what you have in your country.” It was sobering to hear them talking about their experiences and to reflect on the benefits of the Human Rights Act and the Joint Committee.
	I recently had the privilege of speaking to the new commissioners on the Equality and Human Rights Commission. They scrutinised me and my Committee on our work, as we will do shortly when they come to meet us in the next few months.
	On behalf of my Committee, I warmly welcome the report and look forward to implementing more and more of it. I look forward to Ministers doing the same. I am sure they will take the report seriously and ensure that officials see Committees as and when they are expected to do so. I endorse other Select Committee Chairs in thanking their Clerks—I thank my Clerks, Mike Hennessy and Mark Davies—and all their staff, for all their hard work. I look forward to them having more resources as a consequence of the implementation of the report.

Joan Walley: In the brief amount of time I have available to me I want to welcome the manner in which the Chairman of the Liaison Committee has introduced the report. We should do anything we can to get away from the widespread perception that Parliament is all about what happens at Prime Minister’s Question Time on Wednesday at 12 o’clock—that is simply not the case. A great deal of detailed scrutiny work is done not just by the Liaison Committee and Committee Chairs, but by members of Select Committees. It is important that people out there who follow what Parliament does understand that MPs can make a difference in our day-to-day work in holding the Government to account. The report shows how we have taken that forward.
	I would like the time to thank my Committee Clerks—the second Clerk has just become a proud father for the second time; I am sure he would like a mention in Hansard for that—but it is important in the short amount of time I have to concentrate on what will make a difference. Select Committees work not just to hold an inquiry, get a Government response and put
	out a press release, but to follow up their detailed recommendations. We tenaciously follow up Select Committee recommendations so that we get Ministers to come to Parliament to respond. That is important.
	Select Committee Chairs also have the opportunity to request that Committee reports are tagged. That shows that we are contributing to the work that goes on in government and holding the Government to account, which is important.
	The Environmental Audit Committee is a cross-cutting Committee. Therefore, it is important that we have a working relationship with all Secretaries of State in their strategic work through the Cabinet and in their business plans. The Liaison Committee report sets out how we can take that forward.
	I echo previous comments on resources, which is a big issue for my Committee. When the Government got rid of the Sustainable Development Commission, there was an in-built assumption that the Committee would take over that work. I want to leave the House with a plea. The resources available to my Committee in no way compensate for those that the Government took away and cut from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs budget and the budgets of other Departments.
	My Committee was told that the National Audit Office was at our disposal, but the Government cannot dictate what the NAO does. I simply make the point that the NAO needs to look at its resources. Although we have one officer seconded to our Committee, and for whom we are grateful, that is nowhere near sufficient. We need to ensure that the NAO recognises that environmental and sustainability issues matter.
	In an attempt to try to compensate for our current lack of resources, we have sought advice from other sources—something very much in keeping with the thrust of the Liaison Committee report. One of our specialist advisers, Professor Tim O’Riordan, has taken the lead in organising a network of academics with research interests in sustainability, pulling together researchers from many universities and think-tanks. I am pleased to say that the network convened at Keele university in north Staffordshire for the first time in October 2011 with members of the Committee. It is producing a database of sustainable development research to inform the Committee’s sustainable development-related inquiries, once they are under way. As we take the work of the Liaison Committee forward, I hope we are mindful of the way that others are contributing to the work of Parliament.

Angela Eagle: I welcome the report from the Liaison Committee. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) and all right hon. and hon. Members of his Committee on their work. We have heard from some of them this afternoon: my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), and my hon. Friends the Members for Aberavon (Dr Francis) and for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley). All do excellent work in their Select Committees to hold Government and other organisations to account.
	As the report says, looking back over the last year of activity, Select Committees have done an important and successful job. The role of Select Committees has been continually evolving ever since their creation by Norman St John Stevas, who sadly passed away last year. The election of Chairs and of Committee members has strengthened the independence of Committees. It is two years since that was implemented following the recommendation of the Wright Report, and it has worked well.
	As the report states, despite the many demands on Members’ time, attendance is high—approximately 75%—and very few Members have a low attendance rate. The Committee noted that there are often good reasons for low attendance, not least the need to be in several places at once—something Members know only too well. That rate reflects the importance the House attaches to the role of Committees, and, I suspect, the impact that membership of a Committee can have on job satisfaction.

Alan Beith: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She made reference to the difficulties that Committees face. Many Members are placed on Bill Committees and Statutory Instrument Committees, and many are lost to the increasing size of the Executive, including Parliamentary Private Secretaries, and the shadow Executive.

Angela Eagle: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I do not know what the answer is, given that Members of Parliament often have ambitions to be in the shadow Government or the Government and like to get promoted. We have made progress in the past few years in setting up a career path for those who wish to specialise in Select Committees, particularly in the area of scrutiny.
	The report rightly says that holding the Government to account is the main purpose of Committee work. However, our constituents expect more than that. Parliament is here to hold the powerful to account, as well as the Government. Major multinationals are one example of powerful organisations that our constituents expect us to hold to account.
	In that context, I congratulate the Public Accounts Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), who is in his place, on their work. The PAC has exposed the shocking conduct of companies such as Starbucks, Amazon and Google in minimising the taxes they pay in this country. The work of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, in its relentless pursuit and questioning of News International over phone hacking, often when the issue was ignored by many others, has already been commented on. I would like to add my congratulations to its members on playing such a major role in uncovering the scandal. It is only right that we use this debate to highlight the important work that our Select Committee system has done and to congratulate those involved on the work they do. The Liaison Committee’s report rightly praises the Transport Committee, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), for its inquiry into motor insurance, which brought to light a major scandal.
	It is not only major companies, however, that Select Committees need to scrutinise. The Government’s programme of increasing the involvement of the private sector in public services and the breaking up of the health service means that lines of accountability are becoming more and more blurred. The House and Select Committees have the opportunity to scrutinise what these new organisations are up to with public money, and we have to ensure that the Select Committees maintain their ability to follow public money, even if that involves the accounts of private companies. That is an area to which we have to pay particular attention given some of the changes being made.
	I agree with the Liaison Committee report that the primary function of Select Committees is to scrutinise the Government, but I do not want to minimise the important role they perform in holding others to account. We share the Committee’s disappointment that the Government have not published more Bills in draft. They only published 18 Bills in draft in the 2010-12 parliamentary Session. Pre-legislative scrutiny is beneficial to the legislative process and is an area where Committees made up of members with in-depth policy knowledge can add real value. Will the Leader of the House commit, therefore, to increasing the proportion of Bills that the Government publish in draft? Even when the Government have published bills in draft, however, they have allowed insufficient time in some cases for effective pre-legislative scrutiny.

Graham Stuart: I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Department for Education on conducting pre-legislative scrutiny of the special educational needs clauses of a forthcoming Bill. It was a tight timetable, but it gave us the chance to do the job. Ministers have been very open to meetings and to following up and taking onboard the advice of the Committee. It really can work.

Angela Eagle: As someone who gave evidence before entering the House to what were then known as Special Standing Committees, which evolved into pre-legislative scrutiny Committees, I think it is important to highlight best practice and carry on evolving positively the concept of pre-legislative scrutiny.
	The Energy Bill and the Civil Aviation Bill are cited in the Committee’s report as examples of where the Government have not allowed enough time for Select Committees to do their work. The Committee is also right to highlight the shambles of the draft Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill: the Select Committee members reorganised their work to enable scrutiny of the Bill at very short notice, only for the Government to pull the Bill and re-introduce it this Session. In retrospect, Committee Members could have spent many hours scrutinising it without the time constraint, which turned out not to be a time constraint. I hope that the Leader of the House will take note of the need for better organisation.
	We note the Liaison Committee’s suggestion that Commons Select Committees should have first choice on whether to carry out pre-legislative scrutiny, rather than it being a decision of the Government. A Joint Committee could make a valuable contribution, but it is this House that is democratically elected and, as the Liaison Committee rights says in its report, it would
	make sense for a Committee of this House to consider whether a Bill should be referred to a Joint Committee. Will the Leader of the House comment on that suggestion?

Alan Beith: There is a further strong argument, which is that once there is a Joint Committee, election will no longer be the process by which this House elects Committees. Instead, the Whips will perform the kind of function that they normally perform for Bill Committees, and that is not what we want.

Angela Eagle: I note that that is precisely the point the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee members made in their report. By highlighting that section, I am agreeing with him.
	It is also worth considering whether we should go one step further. At the moment, it is for the Government to decide whether to use pre-legislative scrutiny at all. The Government are currently rushing ill-thought-out welfare legislation through the House that will hit people in work on low incomes the hardest. This is a piece of legislation that would have benefited from pre-legislative scrutiny, particularly evidence sessions. That was not allowed to happen, so could the Leader of the House consider whether, allowing for the Government to legislate immediately when there is an obvious need, we could have a Committee of this House deciding whether a Bill should receive pre-legislative scrutiny? These are not suggestions on which I have a settled view, but I am interested in hearing the views of right hon. and hon. Members about possible changes in that direction.
	The Liaison Committee is right to comment on the role of Select Committees in scrutinising ministerial appointments. As it says in its report, the Committee previously commented on this in its 2011 report, “Select Committees and Public Appointments”, which made recommendations for reforming the process. The Government’s response prompted a further report from the Liaison Committee last September, which highlighted the
	“inadequacy of the Government’s response to our proposals”.
	There has been no response from the Government to date, which is clearly unsatisfactory. This has been left hanging in the air for far too long, so will the Leader of the House say when the Government will be responding?

Graham Stuart: Governments tend to grow more and more grudging about ceding powers, whereas parties in opposition make free—they return to philosophical first principles and they tend to make promises. Let me push the hon. Lady on this point. What is the Labour party’s position on a few of these points? She should put it on the record. If there is ever a Labour Government in future, it may or may not be her that takes that position forward, but it would be useful to have on the record some promises that we can hold someone to account for in future.

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is tempting me in all sorts of areas. I hope he realises from the tone of what I am saying that I am particularly interested in seeing what we can do to strengthen the role of the legislature in some of these areas. It is important to have a debate about the practicalities before we formulate an approach to this in the run-up to the next election. I am sure that he will be an avid reader of what comes out of that.
	The Liaison Committee describes the main role of Select Committees as “influencing” Government. I understand the point the Committee is seeking to make. In outlining the role of Select Committees, the functions it describes are scrutinising and holding the Government to account. For me, however, the language of “scrutiny” is preferable to “influencing”. The measure of a Select Committee’s success should not be the sum total of its recommendations that the Government adopt. The core objectives of Select Committees, as first set out by the Modernisation Committee in 2002, have worked well, with an emphasis on their role in scrutinising the Government. However, the Liaison Committee was right to consider whether more streamlined objectives would be suitable. The proposed new guidance for Select Committees is sensible, although I note that it places a lot of weight on Select Committees in terms of their duties.
	I agree with what the Liaison Committee says about how Select Committees can act as a public forum for ideas to be debated. I agree that this is an element of Select Committee work, but there are many routes for debates to take place in Parliament. It is not the primary purpose of Select Committee work to set off debates. I regret the fact that it has had to propose a compact between the Government and parliamentary Committees —again, a feature of the report we are debating—but sadly this appears necessary. The Government’s guidelines to Departments—the Osmotherly rules—state that
	“departments should aim to respond to reports within two months”,
	but as the Liaison Committee notes, responses frequently appear much later.
	It says something about this Government that the Cabinet Office, which is supposed to be taking the lead on making government more efficient, took nine months to respond to the Liaison Committee’s report on “Select Committees and Public Appointments”, when we would have wanted it to lead a little more by example. When Government Departments finally get round to responding to Select Committee reports, the responses are often inadequate. In its evidence to the Liaison Committee, the Regulatory Policy Institute’s better government programme described the Government’s responses as “models of evasion”. Will the Leader of the House say something about what Ministers could do to respond to these criticisms from the Liaison Committee and perhaps to improve performance in the areas of timeliness and clarity of response?
	There are many sensible recommendations in this report, and I do not intend to go through them all. I think that members of Select Committees will want to consider for themselves the many recommendations on how Committees can have a greater impact. I support the recommendation for Committees to experiment with different approaches, such as appointing rapporteurs to lead inquiries, commissioning external research and, perhaps more controversially, using special advisers to question witnesses on technical subjects. That can be seen in other Parliaments, and I certainly think that Committees could trial ideas in and around these areas.
	I welcome the suggestion that Committees could make better use of the parliamentary website. Although, as right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned, this has improved, it is still difficult for members of the
	public to navigate and its existence is poorly communicated. As we place more and more emphasis on the work of Committees, we should work harder to communicate their activities and ensure our constituents can readily access information about them. I welcome, too, the suggestion for substantive motions for debates on Committee reports. In its report, the Liaison Committee said that, subject to further discussion, it would explore ways to implement that.
	On privilege, I note what the Committee has said. As it says in its report, a Joint Committee is considering this currently—or will be. I said earlier that there were occasions when a Joint Committee might bring benefits, and I look forward to the recommendations. I am not as certain as the Liaison Committee appears to be that there is no argument for changes in the area of privilege.
	As I said at the start of my remarks, I welcome this report and many of its recommendations. Select Committees are an important part of the work of this House. I conclude by paying tribute to the work of all right hon. and hon. Members who serve on them and to the sterling work of House staff and all those who help make our Committee system effective.

Andrew Lansley: I join the shadow Leader of the House in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) on securing this debate, and I thank our colleagues, the Chairs of a number of Select Committees, for attending and contributing to the debate. It is good to see them here.
	I shall, of course, want to respond to the Liaison Committee. The House will recall and members of the Liaison Committee will be aware that I did so on behalf of the Government in my letter of 14 January, which was published on 24 January. I will not attempt to rehearse or reiterate all the points that were made there. One recommendation was specifically aimed at the Government, and I shall refer to it later, but there are other important issues in the report that I want to touch on.
	The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) raised a number of other issues that were not necessarily the subject of the Liaison Committee’s report. I shall seek to respond to some of them, perhaps in next week’s business questions. It may be useful for me to recall precisely what proportion of Bills in this Session have been published in draft and subjected to scrutiny. I believe that the number would considerably exceed that in Parliaments under the previous Government.
	The hon. Lady is quite right to say that we are looking for more pre-legislative scrutiny. I recently gave evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, and specifically touched on the mechanisms available for formal scrutiny, public reading stages, and evidence taking in Select Committees and Public Bill Committees. I think we should be flexible rather than being rigid and adopting a one-size-fits-all approach. The hon. Lady is only too aware—as, I know, are other Members—of the exigencies of government, and the requirement for legislation sometimes to be introduced without all those mechanisms necessarily being appropriate or available.
	The background to this debate is the fact that the House now has far more power to hold the Executive to account than it has had in the past. In the last Parliament, it would not have been possible for the Liaison Committee to table a substantive motion for debate unless the Government had agreed to it and allocated time for it to be debated. The establishment of the Backbench Business Committee—it is good to see its Chair, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), in her place—gave Back Benchers the power to table substantive motions. That is a significant departure from the Executive control of the agenda that we saw in the last Parliament, and one that is greatly to be welcomed.
	The motion welcomes the positive impact of recent reforms, particularly the election of Committee Chairs and members, on the effectiveness and authority of Select Committees. I agree with that. I think that the changes we have seen during this Parliament are some of the most significant since the introduction of the departmental Select Committee system in 1979. I pay tribute not least to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young)—who is now the Patronage Secretary—for his work in implementing reforms in the House, and for much else besides.
	The motion also deals with two specific issues to which I wish to refer, but before I do so, let me comment on the Liaison Committee’s observation that it considers the Government’s response to be positive in tone. I am glad of that: it was intended to be positive in tone, and I hope that our further discussions will be as well.
	One of those two specific issues is the procedure for Committee report launches on the Floor of the House. I look forward, along with the Committee, to agreement being reached on a procedure that will help to provide a proper structure for Select Committee report launches. I should make it clear that our preference is that the choice of reports to be launched rest with the Backbench Business Committee, rather than with Mr Speaker, as was suggested by the Liaison Committee. That would be in line with the recommendations of the Procedure Committee’s report on the work of the Backbench Business Committee. I know from my own observation of the Backbench Business Committee’s work in just the last few months that it is extremely well placed to interpret and judge, on behalf of the House, the relative priorities that Members—but not necessarily the Government—would attach to opportunities for short debates on substantive motions relating to Select Committee reports.

Natascha Engel: One of the main issues involved in the launches of Select Committee reports is timing. As it is the Government who allocate time to the Backbench Business Committee, it is not always possible for Select Committee Chairs to launch their reports on the days that suit them best. It would be very helpful to us if the Leader of the House could commit himself to working more closely with the Backbench Business Committee to ensure that reports were launched on days that were convenient to the Chairs.

Andrew Lansley: I hope the hon. Lady knows that we are constantly willing and able, whenever possible, to accommodate the requests of the Backbench Business
	Committee. This is the second time today she has asked me to extend to the Committee opportunities that are not often open even to heads of Departments who try to secure time for statements or debates on specific days. However, we will of course do all that we can.
	That brings me to the second issue that I wanted to raise, that of substantive motions for debate in Westminster Hall. The Liaison Committee says that it is
	“ready to explore whether the spirit of these proposals could be better approached in other ways”,
	and I welcome that. I agree with the Committee that the 20 Thursday sittings allocated to it in Westminster Hall have not always been well attended. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will know, the debate on the Justice Committee’s report on its post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act finished before its allotted time. I find that surprising, given the extent of the interest in the administration of the Freedom of Information Act.
	When I thought about the matter in preparation for this debate, I wondered whether we should at least try to look for a practical way of solving the problem. Noticeably, the Thursday Westminster Hall debates chosen by the Backbench Business Committee are often well attended, and I suspect that that Committee would be willing and able to schedule more debates in Westminster Hall if that time was available. If the Liaison Committee were to think about working with the Backbench Business Committee, perhaps even giving up some of its allocation of time in Westminster Hall, and if Chairs of Select Committees were, in parallel, more frequent bidders to the Backbench Business Committee for debates on Select Committee business on a substantive motion in this Chamber, we might find a solution that benefits both the Backbench Business Committee and the Liaison Committee, and, especially, the House as a whole. Such an approach might allow precious debating time in Westminster Hall to be used and allow the particular characteristics of a substantive motion in this House to be used; things might be optimised both ways.

Natascha Engel: I wish briefly to put it on the record that the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee is a member of the Liaison Committee. That membership facilitates exactly that kind of negotiation between the Chairs of the Select Committees and the Backbench Business Committee to ensure that where it is best to debate and vote on a report on the Floor of the House, we can do that. We are talking about time available to Back Benchers, and we can decide between ourselves how best to allocate it. We work very closely together on this.

Andrew Lansley: I entirely understand that that is so, and I knew it to be the case. I would not wish the House to interpret what I am saying to mean that I want to interfere in any way in this matter. Having observed the situation, I simply think that there is an opportunity for that working together to take place. That flexibility is available and the two Committees might do that.

Alan Beith: I entirely endorse what the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee has said; we get on very well, we are able to negotiate and it is quite easy. It would not be ideal to give the Backbench Business Committee the job of judging between reports of Select
	Committees and then placing them in competition with debates that Back Benchers want because there is a big constituency interest. We must have a procedure that ensures that, either in Westminster Hall or in the House, some kind of priority can be attached to those matters where a Select Committee wishes to warn the House that something is going wrong in the system of government.

Andrew Lansley: My right hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair point, but I am happy to see that informal work proceed. I do not think that at this moment we are talking about any requirement for a formal change in the procedure of the House. We are simply talking about the exercise of flexibility, which need not be at my behest in any sense; it might entirely be to best meet the needs of the Members of this House, be it as members of Select Committees, as constituency Members or in pursuit of their particular interests.
	The recommendation of the Liaison Committee to have substantive motions in Westminster Hall has the potential to impact significantly on the procedures in this House, including possibly by disrupting the business on the Floor to take votes following debates in Westminster Hall. The proposition was made on the basis that debates on e-petitions in Westminster Hall take place on substantive motions. Such debates, which are being conducted on a pilot basis, actually take place on a motion with the formula “That this House has considered”; such a motion is not meant to be amended or divided upon. Should that happen in reality, the potential effects on procedure would be significant, and they have not been tested or evaluated. Changes of the significance suggested deserve far greater consideration of the possible consequences, and it may be that the Procedure Committee could consider those in a more general review of the types of business suitable to be taken in Westminster Hall.
	Only one recommendation is specifically aimed at the Government, and it relates to a review of the relationship between Government and Select Committees, with the aim of producing joint guidelines. The Liaison Committee report said:
	“We believe that the Government has not yet recognised the changed mood in the House and the strength of our resolve to achieve change.”
	I would say in response that the Government have been responsible for the most significant transfer of powers for decades and I believe we can rightly be pleased with what we have achieved together. I understand the mood among Select Committee Chairs and in the House as a whole. and I hope that the Liaison Committee will accept my assurance that all the comments in our response were offered constructively with the aim of securing reform where it is necessary or improves the current situation for Members and in the eyes of the public.
	There is a growing public and parliamentary interest in the accountability not only of Ministers but of civil servants. The civil service reform plan, published in June 2012, contained a number of recommendations on that accountability. The Government believe that the existing model of ministerial accountability is well established and should continue to underpin the effective workings of government. We know that we can
	sharpen that accountability for civil servants in a way that enables Select Committees to understand, invigilate and take views on the performance of Departments in relation to delivery, but I would not want that process to undermine the principle that Ministers are accountable for the policy and performance of their Departments.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will know, the Government are reviewing the document known as the Osmotherly rules, which provides guidance for civil servants. As part of this review the Government will liaise with the Liaison Committee and the Constitution Committee in the other place. I look forward to the productive and constructive discussions between my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General and representatives of the Liaison Committee. I recognise, of course, that plans are in place for former accounting officers to be held to account.
	Before I finish, I entirely endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said about the description of Select Committees. They carry the authority of Parliament and are distinct from any other cross-party group or group of Members. I noted that the Education Committee was described this morning in the early bulletins as a “cross-party group of MPs” and the Transport Committee was called “a Committee of MPs”. Select Committees engage the authority of Parliament and I urge the media to recognise that as well as the distinctiveness of that authority.
	I thoroughly commend the Liaison Committee’s recommendation to other Select Committees that the National Audit Office is available to support them in their scrutiny of the use of resources. Indeed, the NAO told the Public Accounts Commission that it supported that recommendation.
	The work that has been done is a thorough and timely consideration of the work of Select Committees. In its follow-up report, the Liaison Committee emphasised the importance of focusing on impact rather than simply publishing reports and letting recommendations lie. That is clearly the right approach. Select Committees have greater authority and a responsibility to be the champions of good scrutiny. They have greater access to time and to debates in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall and we can continue to use those opportunities more effectively. On behalf of the Government, I look forward to working with the Liaison Committee and others to pursue the recommendations.

Alan Beith: This has been a short but worthwhile debate and I am grateful for the insights offered by my colleagues from the Home Affairs Committee, the Education Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Environmental Audit Committee as well as the shadow Leader of the House. They have all added something. I particularly appreciated the point made by the Chair of the Education Committee about how Committee work changes people’s perceptions of each other and significantly assists the work of Parliament.
	I also welcome the Leader of the House’s clear assertion that the Government are ready to discuss in a co-operative way the revision of the Osmotherly rules. I hope that he will be personally present at the discussions with the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General
	as it would be useful to have the Leader of the House closely and directly involved in carrying those things forward.
	My final objective, after thanking all Members who have taken part in the debate, is to seek the support of the House in carrying the motion and asserting that we want to continue the effective reforms that followed on from the Wright Committee’s work, which have so enhanced the effectiveness of the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the report of the Liaison Committee on Select Committee effectiveness, resources and powers, Second Report of Session 2012-13, HC 697, and the responses to it, Third Report of Session 2012-13, HC 911; welcomes the positive impact of the Wright reforms, particularly the election of committee chairs and members, on the effectiveness and authority of select committees; endorses the Committee’s recommendations for committee best practice and the revised core tasks for departmental select committees; looks forward to agreement on procedures for committee statements on the floor of the House and arrangements for debates on committee reports; agrees that co-operation from Government is crucial to effective scrutiny; and supports the Committee’s call for a new relationship between Parliament and Government, which recognises the public interest in greater accountability.

VEHICLE REGISTRATION MARKS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Syms.)

Stephen McCabe: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a case to the Minister about the system for the manufacture and sale of number plates in this country. I declare an interest as secretary of the European secure vehicle alliance, an associate parliamentary group that has long campaigned to improve vehicle security.
	The UK, unlike many other countries, relies on a poorly conceived and poorly regulated manufacturing and distribution regime with approximately 40,000 outlets that supply, on average, only two or three pairs of number plates a week. That badly designed approach offers neither quality nor inherent integrity, yet countries such as Sweden have designed and developed a secure system relying on a single supplier, appointed on a five-year basis through a competitive tender process, that starts with the assumption that the number plate should be like a secure document that can assist law enforcement agencies as well as protecting owners’ vehicles. In Sweden, the plate manufacturer receives its instructions electronically from the Swedish equivalent of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. The system is simple and efficient, and it provides for security. It is similar to that adopted by many European countries. It provides enhancements that benefit motorist and state, and it works out cheaper for the motorist than is the case in the United Kingdom.
	Such an approach of controlled supply operates in a large number of countries. In some countries, such security value is attached to number plates that they are produced in the same institutions that print bank notes. It would be inconceivable that our Government would allow a free-for-all in passport production.
	In 1994, the Home Office vehicle crime reduction team and the Association of Chief Police Officers produced a plan to reduce vehicle crime that recommended adopting the Swedish number plate regime. In November 2010, a further report from ACPO’s vehicle crime intelligence service recommended adopting a system of secure vehicle registration marks with a limited number of approved suppliers. The British Number Plate Manufacturers Association, the Department for Transport and the DVLA have shown little enthusiasm for the 1994 plan and the 2010 report, but perhaps that is not too surprising, given that the DVLA is not generally associated with innovation and the BNMA is heavily influenced by dominant manufacturers and suppliers, not least the multinational group 3M. These vested interests have little incentive to change the system. It suits them to have a relatively unsophisticated model for the supply and assembly of number plates. 3M gains enormously from the supply of the one high-value product used in British number plates—the reflective sheet.
	One consequence of the ease with which plates can be obtained in this country is that it facilitates the theft and transfer of cars, which is often known in the trade as ringing or cloning and is usually associated with organised crime. There is also a problem with the theft and counterfeiting of VRM plates.
	Despite considerable advances in automatic number plate recognition since the late 1990s, there has been no corresponding change in our number plate technology, yet we know that the police think that this needs to happen. Indeed Hills, one of the leading UK number plate suppliers, has produced millions of plates that cannot be read by many of our ANPR cameras. It seems likely that other suppliers are producing similarly deficient plates. Far from building on the technological lead that developments in ANPR should give the United Kingdom, we seem to be concentrating on providing comparatively expensive number plates which are of little value in terms of security or assistance to law enforcement.
	The style and layout of our plates could be improved. I have here a handy prop—a number plate—which I am willing to gift to the Minister at the end of the debate. It contains a hologram, a concealed Union Jack identifier, small but camera-readable and computer-readable ID marks and the vehicle identification number. That is the kind of thing I have in mind.
	I do not know what has happened to the British Standards Institution review of number plates, which I understand was supposed to be published early in the new year. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us. But it seems to me that this review has concentrated on the views of the industry, the BNMA and its members. It is hardly likely, therefore, to come up with any case for change. Indeed, the committee of the BSI which considers number plates is chaired by an executive of 3M.
	It is my contention that this cosy, almost collusive, set of relationships is hindering our potential to develop a new generation of number plates for which there is now a strong case to be made. It is exerting undue influence on the DVLA and the Department for Transport and putting the profits of multinationals before the interests of our motorists and the needs of the police.
	I hope the Minister can commit to reviewing the existing situation. I hope I can persuade him to review our use of number plates in the context of security and related technology. I hope we can convince him that there are clear advantages in having more security features, and I hope he will re-examine the case for greater control of the supply of number plates. I believe that a single-source supply model warrants consideration, but I recognise that others may judge it to be too great a step, and my interest is in advocating a model that provides for a markedly more secure and sustainable number plate regime. Such an approach need not cost the taxpayer money. It will more likely raise revenue through a better established market that can support the sale of “cherished plates”, and of course any Government seriously considering introducing cost-effective and sustainable road pricing will need an effective number plate regime that gives access to essential data.
	Finally, I contacted West Midlands police to advise them of this debate. They said that change is definitely needed and long overdue. They support improved design and marks to aid automatic number plate recognition, a limited number of approved suppliers, and metal VRM plates hot-riveted to the vehicle to prevent theft and tampering.

Mark Reckless: I declare an unpaid interest as a vice-chair of the European secure vehicle alliance, an associate parliamentary group. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). He made use of a prop, which I have not seen in the Chamber before, but it was a very interesting prop. My only objection to it was that the Union Jack identifier was concealed.
	One might have thought that I would focus my remarks on the single most important issue within the vehicle registration mark regime, which is the requirement for us to have the European flag on all our licence plates. However, given the Prime Minister’s speech last week and the fact that we can now look forward to an in/out referendum on our membership of the EU by 2017, I no longer feel the need to concentrate my remarks on that area.
	I will therefore follow up some of the points made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, particularly regarding the position of the police on these matters. I am grateful to him for sharing with me some of the material that West Midlands police have helpfully provided. The police have highlighted historical issues with the existing VRM regime for many years, and they have recommended a system of secure anti-tamper plates—for example, riveted to the body of the car—that should be available through limited approved suppliers. The problem, though, is that the Department for Transport has responded to the police by rejecting their recommendations on the basis, at least according to West Midlands police, that they are unable to prove that the increase in theft of registration plates is linked to criminality. I find that an extraordinary position, and perhaps the Minister will be able to give an explanation.
	I am concerned that the real explanation is that those within the industry who benefit from the current regime have too strong an influence within the Department for Transport and that the concerns of the police, and indeed the wider interests of the consumer, hold insufficient sway. It does not strike me as a sensible way of organising the regime to have, as the hon. Gentleman said, a major manufacturer such as 3M providing the high-value element of the number plate, and I suspect that the value, or cost, is far higher than it needs to be. It is in the interests of that multinational that our market should be dispersed and broken up with very large numbers of suppliers, given that the sum involved is relatively small for each person in the industry, such that competitive pressures do not come to bear to reduce the price at which it can sell the reflective piece of equipment, nor is the market opened up to other competitors to the benefit of our consumers.
	If we are not worried about the consumer, as we should be, we can at least look at the position of the police. The suggestion that the increase in the theft of number plates is not linked to criminality is really rather preposterous. In 2007-08, West Midlands police found that their monthly average number of thefts was 250. By 2011, that figure had increased to 425, 20% of which involved thefts from vehicles. It is for the Department for Transport to prove its view that this practice is not associated with criminality. West Midlands police gave a whole list of examples of how it is associated with criminality, such as legitimising the use of a stolen vehicle, disguising a vehicle’s identity to use it in crime,
	false reporting after a speed camera activation, walking away from offences such as road traffic collisions without reporting them, and escaping congestion charges and insurance premiums. Potentially, it could be associated with road-use charging. I am not sure that I approve of the hon. Gentleman’s position on that, but I understand that it is to be used on the Dartford crossing.
	One of the obvious ways in which stolen number plates are used is for theft-of-fuel offences. As the Department for Transport supposedly wants evidence on this, I am delighted that in February 2011 West Midlands police commissioned a case study across the whole of Birmingham which found that 153 thefts of number plates were reported, of which 43, or 30%, were subsequently used in theft-of-fuel offences. I think that that is clear evidence that the increase in theft is associated with criminality.
	From the police perspective, the argument is that change is long overdue. There is a security-related argument for limited suppliers, which could be a lot cheaper, and, in particular, an argument for riveting plates to vehicles in order to make it much more difficult to steal them and then use them to support a whole other range of criminality.
	Before I conclude, I want to raise a wider issue than vehicle registration plates. The current system includes the British Standards Institution and various committees chaired by individuals who have clear vested interests that are different from those of the consumer and the wider community. Is that a sensible way to run things? Should not the system be opened up, where possible, to competition and, where not, to at least a degree of scrutiny from Ministers?

Stephen Hammond: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on securing this debate and look forward to responding to it. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) to his place, and I will also comment on his remarks. I am aware that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak is vice-president of the European secure vehicle alliance, which is dedicated to reducing vehicle-related crime, fraud and disorder. I am pleased to be able to respond on behalf of the Government on the matter, which is clearly an issue to his constituents, to the wider UK public and, of course, to the Government themselves. We are trying to respond on behalf of all motorists.
	I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, particularly to his espousal of the Swedish system. I recognise the merits of that system, but I cannot share his view that the UK’s system is poorly conceived and regulated or that we allow a free-for-all. I will put on the record why I think that.
	The register of number plate suppliers scheme was established in 2003 to regulate the supply of number plates in the UK. It has helped to reduce the opportunities for criminals to obtain plates to disguise the identity of stolen vehicles or to use them in criminal activity. As the hon. Gentleman has said, there are almost 40,000 suppliers on the register—38,894, to be absolutely precise. Although I acknowledge, as the hon. Gentleman has said, that
	other countries operate a different regime with regard to supply and format, including a single supplier system, the register scheme represents a system of regulation.
	I accept that, prior to the scheme, it was possible to buy number plates in the UK for any vehicle from any supplier without valid checks or controls. That is why it was essential to put the scheme in place. It makes it more difficult for criminals and penalty evaders to abuse the number plate process, as it requires them to prove entitlement to the plate and to provide personal identification. It has closed off the opportunity for criminals to obtain number plates through legal channels and, contrary to some views, it has the support of the police.
	All number plate suppliers now have to register by law. They pay a one-off fee to join the scheme, the object of which is to ensure that number plates are sold only to a purchaser who can provide entitlement to them and verification of personal details by producing the necessary documents, such as a vehicle registration certificate or a photocard driving licence. Number plate suppliers are then required to keep a record of sales and make it available for inspection by the police or local authorities. That is an important source of information for the investigation of vehicle theft and other crime related to motor vehicles.
	It is an offence to create and supply number plates that do not comply with the relevant regulations and the British standard. In order to comply with the British standard, each plate must be permanently and legibly marked with the British standard number, the name, trademark or other means of identifying the number plate manufacturer or the component supplier, and the name and address of the supplying outlet.
	DVLA enforcement officers, in conjunction with trading standards officers and the police, carry out a number of intelligence-led targeted enforcements against registered number plate suppliers and unregistered suppliers such as market traders. Again, that gives a slightly different impression from that given by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak; it goes against his argument. He made a number of valid points, but it would have been helpful if he had acknowledged at the outset that the registration scheme and the action that the DVLA takes were important in maintaining the integrity of the British number plate system.

Stephen McCabe: I recognise that there has been a modest attempt at regulation, but I am trying to persuade the Minister to go further. Can he give me the figures for successful prosecutions resulting from the activities of the DVLA enforcement officers in the past few years?

Stephen Hammond: I shall try to answer that question later in my speech. If I cannot do so, I will of course write to the hon. Gentleman with the information.
	The hon. Gentleman was right to highlight the concerns expressed a few years ago when a single manufacturer, Hills, developed a system of printing that had the unforeseen side-effect of making the number plate text unreadable by automatic number plate recognition—ANPR—technology. He was also right to point out that concerns still exist. Hills was the only manufacturer using that system, and the manufacture of those plates has now been stopped, but there is still an unknown number of those so-called transparent plates in circulation.
	The Department for Transport estimates that, in the worst-case scenario, up to 5% of all cars could be unreadable. However, we have reasonable evidence that the actual numbers are somewhat smaller. None the less, that development needed to be stopped immediately, and it has been. Most of the transparent plates were fitted to fleet vehicles, which are eventually sold into individual ownership, at which point the plates are routinely swapped for regular, opaque ones. That is one reason that the number might be lower. There were no concrete rules to stop companies employing that process, but that has now been remedied.

Mark Reckless: The manufacturer in question, Hills, was owned by 3M. Is the Minister concerned that there could be a conflict of interest, in that that company, which is well served by the existing registration market, has an executive chairing the relevant British standard that enables the continuation of that market?

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend leads me neatly into the next section of my speech, in which I shall address the issue of the British Standards Institution review. My predecessor committed to looking into that, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak has asked me for an update. I am pleased to be able to tell him that we are seeking to change BSI standard BS AU 145(d), which covers the reflective quality of number plates. Recent advances to ANPR technology mean that the cameras are finding it more difficult to read older number plates. The hon. Gentleman will know, not least because we debated the HGV Road User Levy Bill in the House on Tuesday, that ANPR is now used increasingly for many aspects of managing the road network, including the enforcement of congestion charging and the HGV levy, as well as for detecting and preventing crime.
	A committee was set up to improve standards and it was given an 18-month programme of review supported by my Department and by the Home Office. It is rightly using wider industry expertise. I hear clearly the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak and by my hon. Friend but, had we not used that expertise, one of their colleagues might have challenged me by asking why we had kept the review to civil servants. Once the committee has made its recommendations—they will be published and consulted on in late spring—I hope both hon. Members will respond to them, and point out any outstanding issues. The committee has done some rigorous work, however, and I hope its findings will offer some reassurance. I think that they will help to maintain confidence in the number plate regime, tackle vehicle excise duty evasion and improve safety.
	It was suggested that the introduction of a more secure number plate system would support the sale of cherished plates. To meet the widespread interest in attractive personalised and cherished registration marks the DVLA has since 1989 been operating a sale of marks scheme, a special facility allowing motorists to acquire and retain the use of particular registration marks that have not been previously issued. More than 3.8 million registrations have been sold, which has
	generated over £1.8 billion in revenue. The revenue raised this financial year currently stands at just over £49.5 million, with a total of 166,00 registration marks being sold through the DVLA. The scheme is clearly popular with the motoring public, therefore.
	It is recognised that there remains an issue in that some keepers of vehicles will attempt to flout the law by displaying registration marks in an incorrect format. All such formats will have been supplied by an illegal supplier, however, so they would already be on the register. Those suppliers would therefore be acting illegally already.

Stephen McCabe: Why is the DVLA allowed to option plates that any normal, rational person would realise are being purchased only because the buyer intends to have them tampered with and altered illegally? They would have no value otherwise.

Stephen Hammond: Not all cherished plates fit into that category; indeed, the vast majority of them do not. Some cherished plates might even have our initials on them—I can envisage “NE 1” being one of the great number plates of our time, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	The DVLA and the police take the matter of misrepresented registration marks very seriously. The misrepresentation of registration marks can make vehicles difficult to identify and hamper police efforts. Those who have misrepresented their registration plate have already committed an illegal offence. It is a criminal offence to alter, re-arrange or misrepresent the characters of a vehicle registration mark in a way that makes it difficult to distinguish the registration number. Offenders are liable to a maximum fine of £1,000.
	I am surprised and baffled by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood, because neither I nor my officials recognise the remarks he attributes to us. If he tells me the source of those remarks, I will certainly look into the matter, but while I am prepared to accept that the Department may have made those remarks, we do not at present recognise that.

Mark Reckless: My remarks were a statement of the position of the Department for Transport as characterised by the west midlands police.

Stephen Hammond: That may have been characterised in all sorts of different ways, of course, but I am happy to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend later.
	Over the last century, the number plate has incorporated several security features to reduce the misrepresentation, cloning and fraud that some drivers engage in. My predecessor in the Department instituted the British Standards Institution review. We have some challenging issues to face, but I am aware that the integrity of the number plate regime system is absolutely crucial to road safety, as well as to tackling road crime.
	In conclusion, I cannot promise that we will move to a single supplier system, but we will—
	House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).